Should people separate art from its creator? Can music exist without a composer, a painting without a painter, and a movie without a director? Art is an idea bred by the creative efforts of a person’s mind, which is powered by experience. That is why so many people face a real moral dilemma of whether morally bad artists deserve their art to be canceled. Is there any excuse for them, and how should society handle the situation?
Morally bad artists create good art: is there any excuse?
Caravaggio murdered people, Pablo Picasso was notorious for his misogynistic behavior, while Eric Gill sexually abused a child. At the same time, the artworks by all these famous artists are highly valued and praised all around the world, but why?
People come under two headings. Some separate art and artists, meaning that you shouldn’t judge artworks by the person who created them. Others believe that art and an artists are symbiosis. In other words, by promoting someone’s art, you automatically give more significance to the person who created it. That is to say, if you support paintings by morally bad artists, you condone their actions and behavior.
Apparently, there is no single correct way to answer this question as there is a grain of truth in each answer. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of people know nothing about artists’ lives. Therefore, they cannot really comprehend what they do when giving compliments or criticizing a piece of art.
Given the seriousness of the situation, people should find a compromise that will restore balance in the world of art. For instance, as long as cubist art is alive, Picasso will be remembered as a great painter but not as a great person. So why not let classics alone and focus on the morally bad artists of today?