Separating the art from the artist

'Separate the art from the artist' is a line that has been thrown around a lot more over the last few years, especially in the wake of any new J. K. Rowling tweet, but many people seem to be misunderstanding what the phrase actually means.

(Before I go on - I am in no way endorsing Rowling's views on trans people here. Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary is a valid gender.)

Firstly, let's start of by what many people think it means when they say that, especially with author's like J. K. Rowling. The idea for separating the art from the artist here, is understood as reading a book/watching a film or show/playing a game that was created by a problematic artist. This is usually said to show that the person consuming the art does not agree with the often terrible views from the artist but still enjoys the media, such as with Harry Potter, where many people still enjoy the books, movies and games, however, do not agree with the transphobic views of J. K. Rowling. There are other examples, of course, such as the recent talk about both Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton being racist, and Stephen King's common use of racial slurs (even if it is the villain or bad guy saying it) and that one scene from 'It'.

This is only a very limited, partial explanation of what many say when they use the phrase, however, it's not all of what it means.

When we try to separate the art from the artist, it is supposed to be in the analytical sense when we are studying dead authors, who have died so long ago that we cannot say for certain how much of their art is a reflection of them. It's ok to separate 'Romeo & Juliet' from William Shakespeare, because we don't know much about him. Even today, we still debate so much about him from his sexuality to if he even existed. Compare this to J. K. Rowling, who is still alive and still actively argues her transphobic views in both her tweets and Robert Galbraith books (where I can go all in for the pen name another time), where Rowling has openly admitted to using any money she gains from her books, 'Harry Potter' or otherwise to back her views of transphobia. One tweet in question read, 'I read the most recent royalty cheques and find the pain goes away pretty quickly'.

Photo Credit - u/Shivadxb - r/Scotland, reddit.

This shows that many people's idea of 'separating the art from the artist' doesn't always in practise, for as long as many modern day artists still get money from their work, it won't stop them having bad views, sometimes it actually encourages them.

So, what can we do from this?

Well, we can first start using this phrase correctly, which is in terms of analysing their work. More specifically, when analysing art of dead artists, such as my earlier example of Shakespeare.

From that, if we are going to try the separating that many people think the phrase means, we should make sure that they aren't openly admitting to using any money they get from the art to fund any hateful views. Even if they haven't mentioned it, it's probably best that you avoid giving them any money directly, such as through purchasing any books from non-second hand bookshops or their websites or any games from any non-second hand game shops. If you are still desperate to buy their books, movies or games, try charity shops or any second hand shops so you're not donating any money correctly.

Of course, it's not for me to say whether or not to throw out any media that has been created by a problematic author - that's entirely your choice. Though, if you do decide to keep the media, I'd recommend that you do keep in mind any problematic things about the piece that has been pointed out to you, or that you've discovered yourself - for example, once again with Harry Potter (I may be relying on the franchise too much for this blog post), many names, such as Kingsly Shacklebolt, Anthony Goldstein and Cho Chang, being problematic and stereotypes, as well as antisemitic depictions of goblins and the recent problem of 'Hogwarts Legacy' being about squashing an uprising of said goblins.

Finally, I'd like to end this blog post with some recommendations of authors and stories I like who aren't problematic (as far as I am aware), many of which are pro-LGBTQ+.

- Darren Shan and 'the Saga of Darren Shan/Cirque Du Freak series' (which was originally supposed to have a same sex relationship before the publishers rejected that idea),

- Rick Riordan and the 'Magnus Chase' trilogy (while I, like many other, wasn't happy with how he outed Nico before the character was ready, 'Magnus Chase and the Hammer of Thor' introduces use to Alex Fierro, a genderfluid child of Loki and eventual love interest of possibly pansexual Magnus Chase),

- Terry Pratchett's discworld series (where the dwarves essentially throw away our human gender norms as all dwarves, both male and female, look are covered in hair to the point it's difficult to determine their individual gender),

- J. R. R. Tolkien (who, once he realised that his depictions of Dwarves were antisemitic, wrote new pieces showing while those were the stereotypes in the series, the views of those who saw the dwarves as such were wrong),

- A. A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh, even at my age of twenty, can often remind me to keep things simple, remember to just have fun and rest when needed),

- Finally, Madeline Miller and 'The song of Achilles' (although this book emotionally destroyed me, it was good at actually showing the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as romantic, which isn't always shown).