Should Art Be Separated From the Artist? | TTP Ep. #41 Highlight

[@AmandaHeavenWilling-blasph]

Art shouldn't be separated from the artist, most specifically when the artist receives recognition and money from us enjoying the art. By separating the two you're giving them a sense that it was okay to be a horrible person because they make something good. The shining is a great movie, but it wasn't worth that womans health and intentionally inflicting mental damage to someone to get a better movie (if true) would make the art tarnished.

[@victrola2007]

Hey, R. Kelly earned that coin. (Sarcasm)

[@xEternalSoul]

not specifically for this case, but I take the seperation more like youre allowed to still enjoy something, so say you had already owned an album then listening again is okay. I would avoid buying anything or singing praise of the work because of your point, I dont want to support them and make them think its okay or let them get more work and continue being an asshole but you shouldnt feel guilty about something you loved and had great memories with. For something like this though where the harm is directly related thats harder because the film literally wouldnt be what it is without his mental abuse..

[@jennab4772]

For me, it depends on what they did. I used to love Jung Joon Young but what he did was unforgivable. It’s hard for me to listen to his music now because all I can think about is what he did. Sucks because I love his music. It’s all ruined now.

[@vanlalhriatpuiichhangte4902]

Same

[@amytsang8830]

Same

[@aictopus]

Instead of one or the other, I think about it case by case. I think it's up to how the individual feels about a specific situation. Sometimes I separate art from the artist and other times the artist will completely ruin the art for me.

[@rynlikesfood]

Thats a hard one, as sometimes in the works of someone problematic their ideals show through it at times

[@nabilm.m.7550]

There is an interesting debate in this. There is the fact that art should be seperated from the author. Enjoyment of art is interfered due to the knowledge of an author (or even the active intervention of an author *cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*). Art is open for interpretation and enjoyment for everyone and we can get different experiences, that is a feature that art enjoys, and the author existing to influence the interpretation and perception of such an art is just a harm to the art piece itself. (Imagine Tablo policing you exactly how to interpret and understand the art he makes, kinda shit right?) On the other end of the spectrum, art has this capability to lift someone economically and socially (many artists enjoyed this recognition from way back when Picasso was around til now, perhaps always) and we can assume that artists partially want that (an artist can claim that they do it for self expression but they need money from their at least for food and rent, hence an economic factor.) This status and money elevates artists and gives power and influence. The moment the artist does something bad and can use that status and power to cover it up, justify it and even worse hide it AND we do not stop supporting them by giving them our money and attention, is the moment in which we are seen as complicit in helping them make that crime. As you can see this topic I think is still relevant to talk about. Thank you for bringing this up!

[@francescaclarise1224]

Hahahaha that photo of Tablo in August Rush 😂 I literally watched August Rush again just to look for Tablo 😂

[@snfkn27]

My biggest problem when it comes to separating art from the artist is that films or music are usually works of a group of people. Should I boycott this movie that a whole lot of people worked on because one of them turned out to be a terrible person? Should I not listen to this band’s music anymore because their leader turned out to be a rapist when the other members had nothing to do with that? Because in most cases I will never know if they were or were not aware of what kind of person their bandmate was.

[@vivianhenderson]

As others have said sometimes you can separate the two and sometimes you can't. Sometimes you don't like an artist and it's not for any serious reason it's just a personal feeling, it doesn't detract from their work. But other times a person is so bad that it's almost morally irresponsible to like anything that comes from that person. In which case we probably can find other artists who are just as talented and exciting who haven't done horrible things

[@phoebefernando4091]

off topic but tablo looks incredibly young here! you wouldn’t think he’s a 39 year old married man with a daughter.

[@lola21029]

39 is not that old. Believe me you'll realize it when you'll reach 30.

[@phoebefernando4091]

zélie carrel well i didn’t say that he looks or is old. i just pointed out how he looks really young in this particular video compared to when i’ve seen him before 😆

[@AbirChoudhury101]

The last comment was on point. Instead of placing the artist that's brimming with controversy on a pedestal, might as well spend that energy on another artist

[@victrola2007]

BINGO!

[@janlevihaven9462]

Lol I had this debate during my Literature class when we were talking about post-structuralism and Roland Barthes' essay. This does not apply to every case, but my stance is when you (the reader/listener/audience/watcher) interpret the art work and create a meaning out of it on your own, then the art is already separated from the artist. Because the meaning no longer depends on the artist, but on YOU. After all, art has a different meaning for each person, and those meanings can be very different from what the artist originally intend it to be. When that happens, the art work becomes an independent entity whose meaning does not rely to the artist.

[@jealainelarracas2121]

2:42 that photo of Tablo 😂 I suddenly remember the episode referencing this story 😂

[@jinsminie]

I think Thats a tricky question, but if even if you separate the artist from their art they will still get money because you're using/shopping what they made, so it doesnt matter how you feel about because in the end they still winning something

[@rubberducky.youretheone]

Okay that's just so hard to choose. In one way the artist makes the art so the art is a part of the artist. But in the other way if it's a movie the director can't go too far or whatever

[@tunishiashavon449]

He skirted all past "I don't know how to drive" 😲

[@realmsunreal]

Man that hit, i had to come to terms with this with MoonMoon who was one of my favorite artists and his music is so fucking beautiful i feel so conflicted listening to and empathizing with his music with that knowledge hovering over me

[@PC-fv8cm]

Been listening to love drunk by epik high for a few days now. Just here to thank tablo and the whole of Epik high for such a beautiful song.

[@tsushinofude]

So nice 👍

[@adoresessy101]

I think they should not be separated from the artist because art, no matter what form, still has a bit of the artist in them in my opinion. BUT, at the VERY LEAST, if you decide to separate the artist from the art, don't support them financially or publicly with glee. Listen to that music or watch the movie in your own privacy, but don't recommend it or get angry with people who decide to never watch or listen to the artists contents because of what they did.

[@cassandracomet]

This is such a complex and interesting conversation

[@kkumiyang]

I guess from a creator's perspective, It gets weird to separate art and artist if one considers art as self expression or self discovery... OTOH artists can and do sometimes put out work they don't even ascribe themselves to. (At least not fully.) If the artist has already detached themselves from the work, then it could be safe to say the two are already separate lol. Even more so when an artist hides behind a persona to make a certain kind of work. But whether make and maker are one or not, there's always a level of responsibility to have when bringing something into existence... ultimately the artist is part of that process.

[@ms.chuisin7727]

I think it's good to understand that art should be separate from the artist but people should also know what kind of person created it. If you only appreciate the art, you are only glorifying the artist. I always try to understand what kind of "sick" mind created it. The lady mentioned that there's a lot of other artists that we can appreciate too but what she didn't understand is that the other artist didn't create this piece of art. So it's good to appreciate art but also good to know where it came from(not just a name but what came with it). I do the same for music.

[@MeganTia]

Daaamn, that's my favourite director and film, I didn't want to know this 😭

[@gloprguicds]

I had this dilemma when Roy Kim's issue blew up (he's already been proven innocent). I love him as a singer, his voice was the first thing that attracted me to him. But if it was true, what the media reported about his doings, then should I hate him and his songs, as well? It's hard to hate on a song, when it's done nothing but comfort you on your low days. A great song is a great song. You don't blame the child for what the parent has become. So I did still listen to the songs he's released. 🤷🤷

[@SaffariRose]

Hmmm, I liked your comment even though I had the exact opposite reaction. I LOVED his voice, it brought me comfort in many of my hard times and though I didn't know much about him as a person (I rearly follow or keep up with up any of the artists I love, weird habit 🙃), I felt disgusted and disappointed to the point that I stopped listening to him. For me, it was the fact that someone who would create something that brought me comfort, would participate in something that brought terror and sadness to someone else. It's the irony and hypocrisy that killed it for me. I see reason in what you're saying but, I think while we can indeed separate the art from the artist, the art still came from the artist, and so, that layer of separation is always tainted.

[@muyou6589]

I find it very interesting that everybody mentions the economical issue when defending not separating them. Why do we think money is the only and/or most in important thing that can reward the hard work of anyone?

[@victrola2007]

Why? Wealth or making a living through art(s) is one way to reward/show support for the artist. Depends what someone needs and is truly financially independent (not claiming to be while actually relyingvon others to cover basic expenses). The defense I see more is of type of moral chasm. Money is a reward for work and another measure of popularity or notoriety. One of types of investments one makes and weighs it against own values. To clarify: Money is NEVER the only measure but one of ways to measure investment that impacts enjoyment or 'a value' placed on a piece of art (music/sculpture/literature/films) or collecive sense of value placed on a work. Econimics/Finances are introduced often because this has to with each respondent's prior investment in the artists' work ($$, time, memories associated prior to learning history/behavior) or going forward, type of moral or legal conundrum (weighed against the respondent's own set of values) in future support. Some extreme crimes/behavior/notoriety make the output the very reason X invests in (makes) something valuable. There is a reason why some criminals are legally prohibited from profiting directly from their books or paintings, why some crimes are fetishized and perps' ''___________" collected/loved because of the notoriety (Gasey and his clown paintings/Hitler and his low quality kitsch drawings, houses/architecture bought because it was designed by a murderer or serial molester at a premium). Manson composed and associated with The Beach Boys but I won't stop liking their music, would't bother with his. Will X enjoy Y's ________ "less" having loved a record/movie for years because they did invest something years ago? Era when it happened and the type of behavior matters to most and a fan's age, life experience and cognitive dissonance plays a role. I may not stop watching Hitchcock's movies or sell my inherited Picasso sketch (something put away for later sale), but will not reward Polanski with my time/money and have not for years even though his victim dealt with it for her sake. I loathe the many stars who defended and petitioned on his behalf because he makes great movies (went oddly silent lately). He still gets awards abroad. He NEVER apologized or returned for a trial. Some industries are overrun by opportunistic cowards, but individually X can make a choice. It was not France Gall's fault that Gainsbourg wrote pervy super hit "les sucettes" and made a naive teen virgin sing about giving head (as own private joke) but it makes me sad when I hear it on her albums. "Into the Night' is a classic but Benny Merdones wrote and sang technically a brilliant song, is an upstanding guy, but a 30+ man singing about a 16 year old girl with a very cringe 80's video was a gross fantasy. He could have used '18' vs '16'. He, however, never acted on that and is a still on my play list. Gainsbourg is still considered 'controversial but iconic' and some still adore him. I think he's 'off' and his Charlotte's a talented singer/actress so I watch her work, but not every actress was fit for 'Anichrist' and some believe that she's got a screw loose and had an odd relationship with her father, well documented. People burn record collections for political protest alone, a Charlie Hebdo cartoon resulted in slaughter, but some still treat "Christ in Urine" a piece of $$ art. If an artist is still around, like R. Kelly, I won't/don't want to hear his music/lyrics the same way, donated old CDs a late friend gifted because he's that repugnant to me. Especially today, considering the extent to which entertainers use their old fan-financed wealth to support causes many life long fans oppose and even deride those who made them wealthy may be offensive enough to sour past admiration or tolerance. Old art may not be changed, but future reward is another story. Age of the person making that moral decision (including money) based on the artist's behavior also plays a role. Some younger ones will complain about lack of cash but buy music of reprehensible criminals because they like the tune (R. Kelly still has cemale fans?! Chris Brown?).. Artists are put on a pedestal/valued/rewarded and extent of his/her role in total project weighs heavily in how they are seen earlier or later. Look at Akiro Kurosawa's career - plenty of controversy there but as much contribution. He followed the money/recognition in the West, not just revolutionized film. If a beloved piece of kids' literature is written by a someone who is later exposed as a pedofile [even if he never acted on it], I'm not buying his 100 year old classics for friends' kids. Patronage and affection is closely tied to financial reward or values. There are plenty of others to admire and support. Nothing wrong with making own money, but that reward and appreciation changes for the consumer based on the acts, some learned much later. Real violence, slaughtering an animal for dramatic effect by the director or a singer as part of 'art' is a deal-breaker for me. I'll still enjoy FT Island and CN Blue because acts of 2 men are not a reflection on the others, with brokenhearted bandmates and one, a happily married devoted father of 3 who happened to be in a band with a convicted rapist.

[@victrola2007]

Very short: very FEW consider earnings as the most important way to reward anyone, but there is a Maslow factor. You can't eat admiration or use it to cover expenses. Money, a replacement for the barter system, is one way to show agreement or disagreement with an artist's brand.

[@d.1774]

The question is really interesting, and we all should ask ourselves this question, simply by seeing the meetoo movement. I'm only putting as an example, but the same question was asked during the Césars ( a French ceremony) where there was this film director that was sentenced for rape but he still won a lot of prices during the ceremenony.

[@victrola2007]

Polanski NEVER apologised and his crime was heinous.

[@sheenabramante3587]

I'm with Diane on this

[@sierraesquivel7675]

I'm trippin'. The thumbnail made me think Tablo grew his hair long like I was so confused. Turns out it was the hoodie. LMFAO.

[@AW-ex8fn]

this is so hard. i experienced this with Orson Scott Card and the Ender series....but in the case of harm done in the process of creation of the art....

[@effy9973]

For me it's like if i'm supporting an artist's work then it means that artist would also be supported eventually financially or another way so i don't separate it but it's complicated

[@nafisamasrur4591]

for me, it really depends on what the person did. if it's something like cheating or stealing that shows a lack of character and judgment but hasn't really inflicted long-lasting emotional and physical trauma on a person, then I usually separate the art from the artist, for example, Kevin Hart. but if it's something like sexual assault or mental abuse, like Amber Heard, R Kelly, or Quentin Tarantino (this one sucks big time), that shows that the artist lacks basic humanity and compassion then it's difficult to separate and enjoy their content.

[@mili-dn7cn]

for me it's hard to separate the art form the artist because many of the ideas the artist has are reflected on their work

[@victrola2007]

www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/art-politics/the_picasso_problem_why_we_shouldnt_separate_the_art_from_the_artists_misogyny-55120

[@Lady_Leia]

Idk... I think, unless it’s a criminal thing, they can be separated in a way. What people do in their private life shouldn’t affect their career. But again, if it’s crime, then yes, trash away.

[@TheBlindAssassin24]

I think we can’t help but have our biases when it comes to stuff like this. Like I have absolutely no problem no longer listening to R.Kelly but I have to, I really have to separate Michael Jackson from his music because it was such a big part of my childhood. As much as I am against what seems to be true about MJ I don’t think I can avoid listening to his music throughout the rest of my life. 😔

[@AE-ld9ck]

I think with Michael Jackson, that’s a pretty strong example in this type of argument. I grew up figure skating and know people that danced and cheered, and all of us had performed (and had great memories from) at least one or two routines with music by him. I mean he was such an icon but the evidence was strong on him being a predator, for personal reasons I try not to listen to his music anymore. I think it’s definitely one of those “vote with your wallet” situations every individual makes on their own. ✌🏻

[@AziHejazi]

I had to stop at actor Tablo ... and take a good look and then go on!

[@ria9490]

i think you can't separate art from the artist even if you want to... because it ultimately comes down to the total negative influence or positive influence you have left on society through the piece. and you cannot say you have left a positive influence when you might have adversely affected someone's mental health intentionally. or unintentionally. because the end result is what matters.

[@chloew.6209]

lol is the show he’s talking about ‘mystic tv suprise’? i know a friend who works as an extra actor there LOL

[@hajiraltamimi2827]

I almost shot my self watching 2001 space odyssey 😂😂😂

[@GoodLuckNabs]

If I listen to an old Bigbang song and Seungris part comes, I have to either skip it or turn the song off🙃🙃

[@ibtisammy]

* scrolling through the comments to form my opinion *

[@lumi0526]

im korean n he is korean 2 but i need subtitles XD

[@zooeeie]

서프라이즈구나 ㅋㅋㅋ 진짜 한 컷으로 다 가더라구여 ㅋㅋㅋ

[@mnelf2754]

But most of the time The Art is naturally God gifted to a person he's not credited 100% of his art so it's ok to sometimes just talk about that stuff & not to focus on artist ig

[@csvanderkieft]

Should be separated. An artist can be a horrible person. But the art can still be great regardless.

[@syrok6417]

I think we should separate art from the artist. For example Jung Joonyoung and his music. I absolutely disrespect Joonyomg. He has done terrible things. BUT His music is great. And when I am listening to his songs I think about music but not about bad things that he's done. Of course it's my opinion so u can disagree)

[@ainafatinahyatimmustaffa2839]

I feel the same!

[@nocturnalzebra7276]

I was actually debating on this just yesterday! I’m making a huge playlist of the greatest kpop songs for my friend as an introduction to the genre (on youtube for the reference, not other websites where he would directly benefit from streaming) and I was so conflicted on whether or not I should add some of his songs. It’s just that the line is so blurry. I feel like the way we consume that art is a very important factor, whether it includes just listening the song or buying albums, merch, going to concerts or theaters, etc. So I came to consensus that still listening to JJY or DR’s songs is fine, but any type of monetary support is completely out of the picture.

[@syrok6417]

@@nocturnalzebra7276 great deсision👍

[@diya-rc4fr]

i think you can enjoy art when the artist is a horrible person, but if you're enjoying the art in a way that is profiting and glamourising this terrible person who created it, then just don't do it. like let's say there's jung joonyoung. i don't like him. i can still enjoy his music if im doing it in a way that doesn't profit him. like instead of streaming official music videos and buying albums, you could listen through fanmade lyric videos where there's a lower chance of them profiting from it.

[@eniolaadepoju2032]

Can tablo really not drive?

[@elmomertens]

I think you can like the works from a horrible person, but you should still refrain from benefiting the artist by boycotting and not recommending their works. Art and the artist can be separated, because the artwork has a “life” of its own, but you still can choose not to benefit the “horrible-but-good” artist.

[@mechuri2003]

LMAOO IS HE TALKING ABT 신비한TV 서프라이즈🤣the acting is really bad LOLL

[@muzikk67]

Watching Zelda ruined Fitzgerald's writing for me, especially considering he would literally plagiarize excerpts from her diary. Like it's already bad enough that he was a trash human being, but then getting praise for something that isn't his?? When people mention the great gatsby I just scoff.

[@laylashaikh7446]

I think the art should be separated because (this is just my opinion, don't hate) Blackpink themselves are great people, but their music isn't that great

[@victrola2007]

That's such a tiny fringe example that it barely touches on the subject. You are using the subjective 'good/bad' music taste litmus test as their character gage.

[@bookwork267]

Can someone tell Diane we didn't ask for her opinion tho 😂

[@casglaa5380]

I love Diane’s thoughts, comments, and opinions on anything tablo, jae, jamie, and eric say. She adds so much to the conversation in each episode.

[@bookwork267]

@@casglaa5380 cool then she can get her own podcast and do that🤷

[@casglaa5380]

Cool but next time you decide to share your opinion no one asked for, please don’t use ‘we’ because that adds the undertone that all tablo podcast fans feel that way, which is simply not true.

[@AndiiMalik]

we do care :)

[@bookwork267]

@@casglaa5380 that's not how the word "we" works, and it's rather silly of you to assume I was speaking of "all fans of the tablo podcast" Not all of us are fans of Diane, who in ep 39 couldn't stop laughing at the thought of 12 year old Tablo being bullied, which he later revealed he was. I mean, idk about you guys, but I don't think there's anything even remotely funny about being bullied