Separating art from the Artist: An Ethical Dilemma

There are a lot of ethical dilemmas going around in this day, one that comes to mind immediately is the dilemma of “separating the art from the artist”. In short, when an artist you like does something unforgiveable in your eyes, but you really love their work, can you look past the person that made it and still enjoy the work? Or does that equal supporting them? In this paper I will shortly go over the dilemma itself using an example from the literary field and go over both sides of the arguments for why you can or cannot separate art from the artist using ethical frameworks.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Recently, one of the most well-known dilemmas is the one of separating art from the person that made it. This dilemma has been around for a long time, since about the 16th century with the painter Caravaggio for example, as he was known to be violent to women. But he was still a highly celebrated painter.

So, people have been struggling with this dilemma for a long time, but we still don’t really have a clear answer. With cancel culture being on the rise, this has become an even more debated topic. Audiences are forced to consider whether the work of their favourite artists in music, film, literature, and art can be valued separately from their personal conduct as they are accused of misconduct or holding divisive opinions.

Can we still enjoy a movie directed by someone who is accused of molesting women? Can we still read the book from an author who is openly transphobic? Can we still listen to the music of an accused pedophile? This dilemma compels us to consider both the audience's and the artist's moral obligations. We must face the intricate relationship between ethics, art, and accountability as we navigate this grey region.

For the purpose of preserving the length of the paper, I shall only use one example, but these consequences can apply to any art fields.

J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling, who is known for writing the Harry Potter books. And for being transphobic on Twitter (I refuse to call it X). It all started in June 2019 but really blew up in June the next year. It was during this time that she posted a tweet dismissing an article with the headline: “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.”. The sentence “people who menstruate”, means to include trans and non-binary people with biologically female reproductive organs. She responded with: “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?.”

This tweet caused a flurry of hate comments towards her. It also caused actors that starred in Harry Potter, such as Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson to speak out against Rowling and emphasise their support for trans people and trans rights.

Despite this she continues to post and support transphobia to this day, and it does not seem like she will stop anytime soon.

The consequences of actions are always to be expected, Yet Rowling mostly doubled down on her views, refuse to take accountability or apologise for their views and change them.

Fans

J.K. Rowling is still as transphobic as ever and her previous fans chose to fully distance themselves from the Harry Potter franchise, others are trying to enjoy the world of the book by separating it from her. When fans challenged her on her views, she posted a blog post on her site doubling down on her views and proclaiming herself as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) and insisting that “it isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

Publisher

Rowling's publisher was also beset by internal conflict. In June 2020, Hachette UK, the publisher of her children's books, publicly said that employees could not refuse to work on Rowling's next book just because they disagreed with her. A firm spokesperson emphasized that "freedom of speech is the cornerstone of publishing," distinguishing between criticizing a book's content and openly criticizing the author. The dilemma that publishers have is highlighted by this response: they must figure out a balance between staff and reader values and respect for authors' safety and creative freedom. Hachette pointed out a precedent by cancelling Woody Allen's memoir (following a staff uproar), highlighting how employee and customer ethics influence publishing choices.

Social media and cultural organisations

Social media and other cultural platforms have also been the scene of this dispute. Major media outlets like the BBC, Vanity Fair, The Guardian, and NPR have covered the topic extensively, demonstrating its newsworthiness. Fans flooded online discussion boards and hashtags with calls for boycotts or defences of Rowling's freedom of speech. Even pop culture businesses were impacted: because of Rowling's involvement, some critics called for a boycott of the recently launched Hogwarts Legacy video game. Even the actual sport that was influenced by her novels acted outside of the media: in 2022, the International Quidditch Association changed the sport's name to "Quadball" to "distance" itself from Rowling's name, citing her "anti-trans positions" as a contributing reason. The move, according to league officials, demonstrates a "firm stance" in favour of their trans and non-binary players. These illustrations show how cultural platforms and organizations have responded to the author's controversy by changing their branding or establishing new policies.

Literary community

Opinions differ among writers and commenters. Along with several other well-known authors, such as Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie, Rowling signed an open letter to Harper's Magazine in July 2020, cautioning that "public shaming" and "censoriousness" were endangering free speech. She declared that she was "proud" to stand up for "freedom of speech and free debate." Numerous coworkers and detractors have now voiced their opposition to her opinions. Emma Watson tweeted her support for transgender identities, and Daniel Radcliffe openly backed transgender rights.

As a result, the literary community is divided: some support Rowling on the grounds of free expression, while others denounce her for spreading toxic ideologies. When determining whether to feature or promote her works, editors, literary agents, and festival organizers can likewise experience conflict. Given the circumstances, the scandal has made the literary world face the question of how much an author's personal politics should affect their legacy and reputation in the workplace.

According to utilitarianism, decisions are made based on their overall effects, which aim to maximize happiness or well-being. A utilitarian would balance Rowling's words' negative effects on the transgender community against the advantages of continuing to enjoy her books. Millions of people, including LGBTQ+ readers, have enjoyed and learned moral lessons from the Harry Potter books, but Rowling's anti-trans language may have caused genuine emotional injury to transgender admirers. For instance, following her remarks, prominent media sites reported demands to boycott the whole Harry Potter brand, including the books, films, and even connected video games.

Deontological ethics, often known as Kantian duty ethics, emphasizes moral principles and regard for individuals over outcomes. According to Kant's categorical imperative, we must always view individuals as goals in and of themselves rather than only as means. Rowling's detractors claim that her rejection of transgender identities shows a lack of regard for the agency and dignity of these individuals. This viewpoint holds that praising her work can be seen as implicitly supporting her disrespect for transgender people, which would go against the moral duty to treat everyone with respect.

Other deontologists, on the other hand, could emphasize rights more, contending that everyone, even Rowling, has the right to free speech. One could contend that there is simply an obligation to refrain from causing her unfair damage and no obligation to boycott or silence her. However, a Kantian might decline to purchase or support her work if they consider that purposefully consuming (and so financially supporting) someone whose statements they perceive to be immoral is immoral in and of itself. Kantian ethics, for instance, requires truthfulness and deference; if one feels that Rowling's speech distorts the truth about transgender persons, then promoting her further can be interpreted as implicitly endorsing dishonesty, which is prohibited by Kantian obligation.

Following Aristotle and other philosophers, virtue ethics evaluates deeds according to their expression of virtues or vices. What would a moral person do in this circumstance, one would wonder, according to a virtue ethicist? Here, empathy, fairness, compassion, and honesty could be important virtues. Reading Rowling's books for pleasure does not imply that one agrees with her opinions; in fact, one may respect the bravery, devotion, and camaraderie she portrays while denouncing any bias on the part of the author. Since artists always include their beliefs into their work, it is impossible to fully separate the art from the artist, according to a perceptive analyst.

It also recognizes that "creative people can be problematic and still have something of value" to contribute. In other words, acknowledging both the work's merits and the artist's shortcomings could be a just and moral reaction. In addition to demonstrating an open mind to evaluate art on its own merits, a good reader may work to preserve integrity (not neglecting one's convictions) and justice (helping marginalized people). Therefore, virtue ethics may lead to a nuanced stance for certain people: continue reading the books for their aesthetic and moral value while continuing to be critical of the author's personal behaviour and using the circumstance to exercise virtues like forgiveness and understanding rather than categorically denouncing them.

I have been a fan of Harry Potter for my entire life. I have read the books in Dutch and English back to front, and I could tell you the entirety of the story from beginning to end and tell you about character that barely get covered in the books. During COVID and the few years after, my obsession grew even more, having posters, wands, and a movie accurate Marauders Map. But when Rowling’s comments caught my eye, my world crashed around me. I was in the middle of trying to figure out my gender identity and experimenting with pronouns, and now, the author of the book series I grew up with denounced my existence as a nonbinary person.

It felt difficult to look at the merch I had around my room and not feel an ounce of disgust with it, so I did what was good for me, I covered it, I hid it away, my books hidden behind random items on my bookshelf, my wands and Marauders Map stuffed in a drawer. I was of the principle “out of sight, out of mind”. One of the things I did keep up was a poster I have of Sirius Black, because he was played by Gary Oldman and I love him as an actor.

Overall, I think it is impossible to separate art from the artist. In my eyes the artist can and will always be connected to the work they create no matter how hard you try and separate them. The opinions and views from the author can always be found in their works. One of the things I can think of with Rowling that is also found in her work are her stereotyping, for example: the names of the characters in the Harry Potter books. Some that come to mind are Cho Chang, the only East Asian character and her name consists of two surnames that are not even of the same languages, Cho being Korean and Chang being Chinese. Kingsley Shacklebolt, one of the only POC (Person of Colour) and his surname evokes imagery of slavery with the words shackles in his surname.

In the end, in the subject of literature, where an author's personal ideas and public behaviour can affect how their work is viewed and received, the ethical conundrum of separating art from the artist is a significant challenge. The Rowling case is one of the best examples of this. Her public transphobic remarks and certain aspects of her literature, such as the stereotypical representation of minority characters, have aroused serious ethical problems, even though her Harry Potter series has had a significant cultural and literary impact.

The ramifications influence a variety of stakeholders, including as readers, publishers, educators, and marginalized populations, all of whom may be impacted by the messages propagated by literature. The Rowling case emphasizes how crucial it is to promote ethical accountability in the publishing sector and critical engagement with literary works.