Written By: Genia L. Morgan, Jeffrey Lyles, Edward Thomas II, Daryan Johnson, Michael Logan, Dion Johnson

"On June 24, 2007 the most heinous incident in wrestling occurred as popular and accomplished wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his wife and 7-year-old son before hanging himself."

It Is The Question That Drives Us

Works of art are created things. Their value and appeal are completely subjective... you’re free to love or hate anything. But you love or hate that work of art based on your feelings about the art and, to a lesser extent, the creator at the time it was created. If later on down the line, you learn something that taints your opinion of the creator, should it also change your position towards the creation? Or does the creation have a life of its own that should be able to stand separate from the creator?

JayMediarts has gathered a collection of artists for this collaborative article to offer an answer to this dilemma of whether art can be separated from the artist that creates it.

The Indecent Proposal

“Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time.”

Thomas Merton

Although this quote does display an idea from a more traditional time, it is no less relevant today. While art is a representation of an artist’s creative mind it should not be judged solely by who the artist is as a person. At its core art is a means of communicating stories. Creators tell these stories for self-expression of ideas and thoughts, as well as to be understood by, connected to, and to stir emotions in others that consume them. And at times, the best creations are fashioned by artists in need of an outlet to, for at least a moment, escape their personal failings and be who they are not, but long to be. By extension, consumers of the created works get inspiration and enjoyment from the work while also getting to experience connection, not only to the work’s creator, but to the community of people that consume and find similar meaning in the work. Aside from the basic human needs of food, shelter and security, abstract concepts (connection, self-expression, inspiration and accomplishment) embodied in artistic expression and consumption have been an integral part of the human experience dating back to the earliest days of mankind (think cave drawings). Thus, any topic addressing the elimination of an impactful work of art is one that must be taken seriously, evaluated methodically, and approached with a degree of artistry itself.

Author and artist Genia L. Morgan separating ART from the ArtIST that is burning in a blaze of controversy. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

Since art is largely a form of communication where a creator (sender) conveys stories to a consumer (receiver), the pre-conditions (or lack thereof) for the connection between these two parties are clear. Knowledge of the sender, their motivations, life and even their interpretation of their own work, is not a prerequisite for a receiver to dissect and glean their own interpretation from the work. It can be a one-way transmission. Although it is important to know the creator of a work to give credit where credit is due, simply put, art deserves the opportunity to be as disconnected from the artist as possible. Thus, in theory, there should be no required elimination of any artistic creations due to transgression of its creator. In reality, however, when posed with answering the question if one can separate art from the artist, it becomes apparent that, even the most straight-forward answers are layered with complexities.

"While I feel like, at this point in my life, I'm too old to be caring about folks’ feelings on social media, I just didn't want that negativity brought to my wedding."

One fact that muddies the water on how we accept creative works is the interpretive duality inherent with each creation. On one hand, art can be enjoyed solely from a consumer’s own point of view. On the other hand, while not a prerequisite, we can form an opinion on art from the artist’s perspective, and this is where the lines begin to blur. Since we are trying to completely enjoy and respond to the art through the artist’s lens, we now feel as if we need to know the artist beyond the art and get a view into their personal lives. So, in an era marked by never ending media coverage and ubiquitous social media outlets that allows little to no privacy for any individual, creators – with all their redeeming qualities and personal failings – can seem irrevocably connected with their works. Consequently, asking someone to maintain an intimate relationship with creations of someone that is transgressed can seem like asking them to get in bed with both the creative work and the tarnished creator, which, for many, is an indecent proposal to make. 

Taking it Personal

Author and artist Edward Thomas II separating ART from the ArtIST with a cloud of smoke. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

Artistic works are very personal to those that consume them, and so is one’s approach to handling the so-called indecent proposal of remaining connected to works generated by an artist that is now a societal outcast. One of this article’s contributing authors summarizes this perfectly as follows:

Without particularizing, it is easy to recall my own thoughts and actions on the matter. I find that for me, artist tenure, timing, type and frequency of blemishes appear to be a few factors involved when faced with any artist or artist’s work in this dilemma. I’ve found myself going through several stages from having previously supported them, currently appreciating, benefitting, or even having been blessed by the art of an artist whose character is in question. Then while being duplicitous, I flirt with variant degrees of support of the art or artist ranging from quick pardons to feelings of temporary dislike or full disdain and dismay. Finally, my objective mind eventually still admits and recognizes the genius of artistry, even begrudgingly at times when considering said artist’s private or public indiscretions or missteps.

Nevertheless, my spirit aims to operate on a higher frequency and believes enlightenment and redemption are possible, although it can be challenging and a never-ending journey. I will sincerely keep striving to self-actualize and learn to strike an altruistic balance between justice, compassion, responsibility, and appreciation, hoping to encourage the same for all of humanity. Extraordinarily gifted art impacts, affects, leaves a legacy, withstands the test of time, and eventually outlives us all.

As described above, one’s personal journey with art can be filled with complexities. This journey doesn’t take place within a vacuum, however, and when mixed with public sentiment, the complexities only increase. This is articulated by another of this article’s contributing authors:

Currently, there are no clear-cut rules for when we should preserve art separately from a transgressed artist, versus when art must be thrown out with an artist that is no longer in good social standing. Not only is this annoying, but this inconsistency has recently impacted me on a personal level while making plans for my wedding. I can admit that my taste in music can be very random as I am known to post songs on my Twitter or Instagram pages whenever a song randomly pops into my head. So, the months leading up to my wedding I kept hearing the song "Fiesta" which is a collaboration with Jay Z and R Kelly and I was initially compelled to post it and ultimately include it on the reception playlist. Considering Robert’s (R Kelly) recent ‘cancellation’, however, I never did post it or play it for my wedding guests because I was nervous about what folks might've said. While I feel like, at this point in my life, I'm too old to be caring about folks’ feelings on social media, I just didn't want that negativity brought to my wedding.

This anecdote really leads to the greater point about the times we're living in. In recent years, I feel society has made many of us easily offended and has created a ‘cancel culture’ mentality. Various opinions get spewed daily on a variety of platforms, which often seem like one collective thought shared by the masses. So, if you’re someone that loves to play the TP2.com tracks, and can sing it from back to front, you might find yourself questioning if you can suddenly not do it based on the new evidence towards Kelly.

Author and artist Daryan Johnson separating ART from the ArtIST that is drifting away in a sea of dissension. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

The above passage reveals challenges faced when a personal journey with art mixes with public sentiment about the artist, thus exposing the core reason why the question posed by this article is so potent. If it was simply a personal decision, the question of separating art from its artist is simple: I will continue to consume the art until I, for whatever reason, no longer feel a connection to it, irrespective of my feelings towards the artist. When it is no longer solely a personal choice, but rather one that is informed and greatly impacted by public sentiment, it now becomes a matter of whether we should deconstruct legacies and whether I can or should continue to consume art that I still feel connected to, without great personal cost and alienation.

Wrestling With Cancel Culture and How Legacies Play After Controversy

On June 24, 2007 the most heinous incident in wrestling occurred as popular and accomplished wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his wife and 7-year-old son before hanging himself. It was a traumatic and damaging incident for wrestling in general. In the ring, Benoit was considered one of the elite stars of all-time. His 2003 Royal Rumble match with Kurt Angle is considered one of the modern-day classics. Benoit also received one of the more storybook endings at WWE’s biggest showcase as he won the world title at Wrestlemania 20 and celebrated the win among a sea of confetti with one of his longtime friends, Eddie Guerrero. It was one of the more iconic moments in WWE history and was considered one of the snapshot moments until that fateful day in 2007.

"And even in the age of #MeToo, streaming services have yet to pull Annie Hall from their list of offerings."

Benoit wrestled for 22 years and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer making his mark in ECW, WCW and WWE. He was an accomplished wrestler who became a major player in the early 2000s. Due to the final days of his life, a cloud sits over everything else he ever accomplished. The WWE largely has acted like Benoit didn’t exist. Benoit is not searchable on the WWE’s library catalogue service the WWE Network. His matches are included on the Network, but WWE has gone to great lengths to avoid any obvious association.

It’s hard to argue with WWE’s stance on Benoit. There’s a number of fans who are able to watch Benoit matches and appreciate them in the context of Benoit the wrestler without the link to Benoit the man, but he might be the hardest to avoid thinking of the final days of his life regardless of his incredible talents as a performer.

Author and artist Jeffrey K. Lyles separating ART from the ArtIST that is being left off of the graffiti wall. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

By comparison, Hulk Hogan had a far less damning controversy. In 2015, the WWE fired Hogan aka Terry Bollea over racist remarks regarding his daughter dating a black man that were privately recorded in 2007. Like Benoit, the WWE went into scrub mode deleting Hogan content from the Network and eliminating all references from promotional materials. Hogan, the larger than life symbol of wrestling in the WWF during the 80s and the evil heel for WCW in the late 1990s, was clearly a character. Bollea’s career was already slightly tarnished after he admitted to doing steroids during his 80s heyday. Were those the “vitamins” Hogan referenced along with saying your prayers?

Like most caught celebrities, Hogan went on a lengthy apology and make good tour while remaining persona non-grata with the WWE for two more years. Gradually, the WWE began putting more Hogan footage back on the Network and he eventually returned to an on-screen role as a WWE ambassador/spokesperson. Black WWE wrestlers were initially skeptical of Hogan’s apology, but most have since accepted his remorse and have expressed a willingness to give him a second chance.

Hulk Hogan is a character and Terry Bollea is a person. The lines get blurred when a performer starts buying into their character more, but it’s easier to separate the two in these kinds of instances when a person’s less admirable traits don’t line up with the personality of the performer. Hulk Hogan kicked it on screen with Mr. T, Shaquille O’Neal, Virgil and Dennis Rodman. Terry Bollea might not, but the lines are easy to distinguish.

Another sports hero that has seemingly received a pass is Jim Brown. Brown is revered by many for his exploits on the football field but also, for his activism off the field. This reverence comes in spite of the fact that he's been accused of numerous domestic abuse allegations, detailed in a 2016 Deadspin article. Brown was one of the first black leads in television back in the 1960s, along with another prominent actor of that time, Bill Cosby, and we know the saga of Bill Cosby that resulted in his syndicated show being widely removed from streaming platforms even before he ultimately landed in jail.

Visualizing the separation of art works from their controversial creators - Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson. 

While on the subject of Cosby, let’s switch gears from sports and look at other controversies in Hollywood. Director Bryan Singer made headlines for all the wrong reasons earlier this year after a scathing expose detailed how he was involved in sexual assault/harassment incidents for decades. It’s hard to hear some of the dialogue in X-Men films, which he used as an analogy for coming out without considering how he might have preyed on impressionable gay teenagers. X-Men actor Alexander Burton alleged employees of Singer’s production company DEN sexually and physically abused him in addition to forcing him to take prescription drugs and controlled substances. Singer allegedly paid $150,000 to settle rape allegations back in June. Singer’s talent as a director definitely doesn’t seem to outweigh the seediness of his actions on set. The only potential saving grace for his legacy is that while some of the dialogue and scenarios might be cringe-worthy, it’s not actually Singer on screen saying or doing any of those actions. Oscar winner Kevin Spacey likewise was at the center of controversy after more than 30 men and boys accused him of sexual harassment and attempted rape. Unlike Singer whose work was done behind the camera, Spacey is prominently featured on screen and his allegations of going after children is hard to shake no matter how great he might be in The Usual Suspects or American Beauty.

"Cardi's meteoric rise has faced no major career altering backlash from revelations that she has admittedly drugged, aka Cosby’d, and robbed men that she invited to her hotel room with the promise of sex."

An example of an embattled celebrity whose legacy seems to be surviving despite being prominently featured on screen, is Woody Allen. Woody Allen is a director, actor and comedian with a career spanning 6 decades. He is known for such hits as Annie Hall, and Match Point, the former being a movie that he also starred in. In addition to making movies, Allen is also known for grooming his underaged step daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, prior to having sex with and ultimately marrying her. Additionally, he faced a sexual assault allegation from his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow. Despite all of this, although few will defend his personal actions, Allen continues to produce films and tv programs. And even in the age of #MeToo, streaming services have yet to pull Annie Hall from their list of offerings.

Author and artist Michael Logan separating ART from the ArtIST that is left out of the portrait. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

Finally, let’s examine controversial individuals in another popular artistic medium: Music. Cardi B’s career as a rapper, actor and television personality is about as hot as it gets. With numerous hit songs under her belt, she is also poised to be a huge movie star with the recently released Hustlers also starring Jennifer Lopez and Constance Wu. And despite the supposed over sensitivity of modern society, Cardi's meteoric rise has faced no major career altering backlash from revelations that she has admittedly drugged, aka Cosby’d, and robbed men that she invited to her hotel room with the promise of sex.

"The muting of R Kelly is not about sensitivity to the victims and it never was."

Let’s not forget about pop sensation Ariana Grande, who got caught in 2015 in a TMZ video licking donuts and saying she hates America in the surveillance footage. Grande offered a social media “apology” tweeting that what she said in a private moment was taken out of context. That was enough for her followers, who got #WeForgiveYouAriana trending.

I could also discuss Chris Brown, but it would take too long to outline all his shenanigans. Suffice it to say that he too has benefited from the world being able to separate his art from his personal activities.

The examples found in multiple artistic venues are almost endless showing situation where, both art and embattled artist may suffer demise, or the art, artist, or both render no consequences. In countless situations, legacies remain intact and people do in fact continue to consume artistic creations despite the creator's bad behavior, so that leads to the question of why certain situations result in the opposite outcome. A question whose answer is buried deep inside of the new-found fury directed at R Kelly.

What's the Real Reason We're Mad At R Kelly?

Robert Sylvester Kelly, known to the world as R Kelly is embroiled in a fight for his life. After giving the world three decades of hits, he finds himself facing multiple sexual assault charges, child support charges, and the possibility of serious jail time. The significance of his situation to the question posed in this article is that he is also facing a relentless campaign that has seen his music removed from several platforms and has made a pariah of anyone that dares enjoy said music in a public forum. The fuel that has ignited this campaign into a four-alarm fire (aside from Kelly's own despicable actions) is a documentary called Surviving R Kelly. This documentary details many sexual abuse allegations against the singer, and features many of his accusers, along with notable musicians including, John Legend and Chance the Rapper. Following the airing of this documentary, his label severed ties with him, and criminal abuse charges soon followed. In addition, the campaign to "cancel R Kelly" or "#MuteRKelly" kicked into high gear. What is most amazing is that R Kelly was able to hide his alleged predatory behavior for so long before that documentary came out... Well, that would be amazing if it was at all true. R Kelly's alleged predatory behavior was anything but hidden from the public. In fact, it was a thing of legends. His relationship with an underaged Aaliyah was widely known about in the 1990s and beyond. His sex tape featuring himself with an underaged girl was widely circulated in the 2000s which lead to criminal charges and a trial. Dave Chappelle even did a famous sketch about it on his show. Sometime after that Kelly, with no sign of shame, came out and called himself the Pied Piper of R & B, and created a hit song where he sang flute noises. FLUTE noises! The Pied Piper, for those that don't know, is a fairytale about a flutist using his music to kidnap a community's underaged children. In the 2010s his alleged sex cult hit the media. Kelly's music, through all of this, continued to sell like hotcakes and his popularity remained high. That is, until the infamous documentary dropped.

So, what happened? After three decades of abuse did we, as a society, suddenly become more enlightened about the severity of his alleged behavior and garner more respect for his alleged victims? No. The muting of R Kelly is not about sensitivity to the victims and it never was. It is not about some supposed inability to separate art from an immoral creator, either. Society can and does make the separation with ease, a fact that is illustrated in many of the examples laid out in this article. This fact is also evident in decades of R Kelly abuse that went ignored, and in countless other examples in various artistic disciplines across multiple time periods. What the saga of R Kelly has revealed is that the primary impetus behind tearing down any legacy, or muting/destroying a compelling artistic creation is when the destruction of that legacy/work has risen to the level of being more widely compelling, fulfilling and artistic than the original work itself.

Author and artist Dion Johnson separating ART from the ArtIST that is being drenched in a rain storm of scandal. Photo manipulation by Dion Johnson.

The Gallagher Effect

Leo Gallagher, known simply by his stage name, Gallagher, is a comic known for using props as well as telling hacky and offensive jokes. Despite what an audience thinks about his show and humor, they all seem to find themselves excited and on one happy accord at his show's finale where he performs the most famous part of his act: smashing watermelons and other items with a sledgehammer. People in the front rows cover themselves with plastic and can hardly contain their excitement when it is time to pull out the "Sledge-O-Matic!" His acts of on stage destruction have given him a career spanning decades, which only serves as a peek into the window of society's enthrallment with the art of destruction. The Smithsonian.com published an article a few years ago that talks about society's interest in the art of destruction from the 1950s to modern times, and it's clearly a very real thing. That article may be due for an update that looks at the new culture of cancellation and muting ushered in by social media, as this culture has become the newest form of destructive art.

This is what we're seeing with R Kelly. The groundswell… the art... the story around silencing R. Kelly due to his repeated predatory behavior, capped off by a well done, artistic documentary that visualizes his behavior, finally eclipsed the successful music that he spent years producing. The same thing happened with Bill Cosby. The viral joke told by Hannibal Buress, along with dozens of accusers immortalized on a New Yorker magazine cover, made for a legacy destroying story big enough to fill the void left by the removal of his works from circulation. It is now more compelling for people to talk about how his actions devastated them, than it is to talk about how his creativity inspired them. The Weinstein story, even with his dozens of accusers has not reached a level in our society where it would fill the void left by the destruction of his vast body of work. And neither has Cardi B's, Woody Allen's or Chris Brown's.

One thing that’s clear from all of this is that the answer to the question posed by this article is: Yes, art can be separated from the artist that created it. This has never been, nor will it ever be a problem. So, silencing, muting, or cancelling someone's art is not about the transgression, but more so about the story of the transgression and how to make the story of their legacy’s downfall and/or their art’s destruction compelling enough to fill the void that is left by the destruction. There are many factors involved in making this art of destruction compelling, including gender, ethnicity, age, race, tax brackets, nature of transgression, timing and star power, but let’s save that discussion for another article.