Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s been a lot of talk lately about separating art from artists. This has been spurred, as it always is, from the latest stunt by Kanye West. As I’m sure everyone is already aware by now, Kanye got up on stage at the Grammy’s while Beck was accepting his award for best album. While it looked as though Kanye was joking, he later made statements in interviews saying he was dissatisfied with the decision, and felt as though the award should have gone to Beyonce.

Now Kanye has since apologised and the whole thing has pretty much blown over. Kanye certainly hasn’t gotten as much hate as he did when he pulled the same stunt at the VMA’s in 2009. But the whole incident got me thinking about the bigger conversation surrounding the incident; when, if ever, should we separate art from artists?

Of course it has to be said first of all, that it’s ridiculous that Kanye is starting up this argument again. That’s not to say that his actions were justified or that he’s not an asshole, but in the grand scheme of terrible things musicians have done, he barely even registers. Kanye fans would normally point to John Lennon in this situation. He famously beat his wife, but this isn’t brought up during every conversation about The Beatles. Yet if you’re talking about Kanye, you can guarantee someone will bring up Taylor Swift.

Of course the debate isn’t black or white, some artists have done worse things than others. There’s no denying that. There’s also a sliding scale of quality to take into account here. Kanye West is not only a fantastic musician, he is the most important guy working in music right now. There is absolutely nobody else around right now who is managing to both make varied and innovative music, and infect the mainstream with it.

So why does Kanye West receive such attention for his antics? Perhaps genre snobbery has something to do with it. When Kanye or Azealia Banks run their mouth off about another artist, they need to shut up and be respectful. When Noel Gallagher or Patrick Carney do it, they’re legends. Race may also have something to do with it, but that’s a different post for a different day.

With all that said however, it’s not all that simple. We can’t just say “The quality of this person’s art outweighs the quality of their character, therefore we can separate art and artist.” The reason we can’t separate Kanye the person from Kanye the artist is because of how personal his music is. And he’s never pretended to be anything other than an egotistical jerk. On “Diamonds from Sierra Leone” he raps, “What more could you ask for?/The international asshole,” and that was from 2005, long before he really earned his reputation.

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy is rightfully considered a masterpiece, Kanye’s opus and one of the greatest albums of all time. It’s a fantastic album in its own right, but you have to contextualise it within the Taylor Swift incident to really appreciate it. Take “Runaway” for example. Without the context it’s a great song about a guy who’s terrible at relationships. With context, especially when knowing that the song debuted at the VMAs one year after the incident, the line “You’ve been putting up with my shit just way too long” takes on an obvious second meaning, an apology to those Kanye has wronged, and to his fans who just want him to focus on music.

So not separating art from artist isn’t always a bad thing, but Kanye does this very deliberately. Let’s take a look at a second example, Chris Brown. In 2008 he was the singer of upbeat inoffensive pop jams like “With You” and “Forever.” In February 2009 he savagely beat his girlfriend Rihanna, leading to a lot of media attention, particularly photos of her bloodied face which were widely publicised. Since then Chris Brown’s music has undeniably changed, becoming more mature in subject matter, while Brown has attempted to put forward a more tough-guy demeanour.

Now, these artistic decisions could have nothing to do with the Rihanna case. Brown was only 18 years old when “With You” was released. He’s now 25. Around that age period many artists do try to appear more mature. The problem is, Brown’s music has become a lot more misogynistic in that time, and it’s hard to separate that from his past behaviour. When he tells you that “These hos ain’t loyal,” I can’t help but think that he’s been far worse than unfaithful.

So Kanye West utilises the connection between art and artist to his advantage, while Chris Brown doesn’t think enough about it and ends up making himself look bad. But both of these are examples of music released after the event. Can, and should, we take into account the acts of an artist when looking at their past work.

To give a personal example, I’ve never liked the Metallica’s patriotic anthem, “Don’t Tread on Me.” To me it’s the weakest point on an already inconsistent album. In 2004, while discussing the military’s playing of “Enter Sandman” non-stop at high volumes as a form of torture, Metallica frontman James Hetfield said, “If the Iraqis aren’t used to freedom, then I’m glad to be part of their exposure.” Since then I can’t help but feel a lot stronger in my distaste for “Don’t Tread on Me.” Now it represents everything I dislike about American style patriotism and jingoism. Whether or not that’s fair, I don’t know. But it’s how I feel.

It’s possible to like an artist’s work while disliking them as a person. The question really is do we separate the two or are they intrinsically linked? I think we can and should separate the two at times. For example, I like the Foo Fighters. Hell I like a lot of the bands related to the members. Nirvana, Them Crooked Vultures, Probot, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, Sunny Day Real Estate, I love all of these bands. But the Foo Fighters in the past have supported and raised money for Alive & Well, an AIDS denialist group. Now the band seemingly do not support Alive & Well any more, at least in public, but they’ve never recanted their support and that’s always rubbed me the wrong way, to say the least.

However I don’t look at their music through this lens. Why would I? None of these bands have lyrics about AIDS denialism, or even AIDS in general. If I purposefully viewed all their music through that lens, I’d be ruining a lot of music that I love for no real reason. That said, I can look at their recent album, Sonic Highways, while thinking about my perception of Dave Grohl. Grohl has always come across to me as far too snobby about music for someone making such cookie-cutter work (not that that’s a bad thing, Foo Fighters are good at what they do). Sonic Highways is directly about music, so I don’t have a problem looking at it with that lens. However, I can also look at it without the lens and judge it on its own merits.

I think it’s important to use these lenses as tools. Completely ignoring an artist when looking at their art is disingenuous as they’re so often directly linked. Especially when the music is heavily personal or political, then we have to look at their personal lives or politics. However I also don’t let the personal lives or political opinions of artists sully their entire body of work for me. Furthermore, there are some works of art that can be looked at both without and within the context of the artist’s behaviour or beliefs. There is nothing wrong with looking at it from both angles in these cases.