The question frequently comes up, whether consuming the work of a morally questionable artist is ethical. With the advent of cancel culture, it’s become a socio-political hot potato that most people never want to examine. Cancel culture is when a prominent figure does or says something offensive and public opinion attempts to strip them of their platform. This can be done by boycotting, mass reporting of their accounts to get them banned, and not consuming anything they produce. When an artist is “cancelled”, there’s a general consensus that their work has become non grata.
For example, when musician R. Kelly was convicted sex crimes against minors, streaming platforms like Spotify and YouTube stopped promoting his music. Spotify scrubbed his curated playlists and stopped adding him to featured lists. YouTube removed two of his main accounts but music videos are still available on the general platform. Many people have also taken it upon themselves to stop listening to his music. The question now comes in, what if you want to listen to R. Kelly’s music?
The immorality spectrum
Some people find it difficult to listen to R. Kelly because of the nature of his crimes. Every time they listen to his music, they can’t help but remember what he is responsible for. In this case, the artist’s crimes are too difficult to compartmentalise to enjoy his art.
On another part of the spectrum, you have artists like Chris Brown, who physically assaulted then girlfriend Rihanna. Some of his present-day fans state that they didn’t “cancel” him because his crimes are old. It was a long time ago and he hasn’t been arrested for domestic abuse again. But he has been accused of domestic violence multiple times since.
You also have the matter of politics. When Kanye West came out as a Republican supporter who believed right-wing propaganda, many people decided to stop listening to him. However, some people decided that his music had nothing to do with his newfound political bent so they can listen to Kanye with a clear conscience. Others work around it by only listening to his work before he started creating Antisemitic posts.
In many instances, when the artist has a visibly unpleasant political turn, there are calls to stop consuming their work. This is because some believe that consumption = endorsement. When you consume the art of someone who has heinous beliefs, then you are rewarding them for those beliefs. However, this argument is a slippery slope because it only applies to artists who have visible political opinions or have been arrested for their crimes.
It also calls for consumers to always research every single artist whose work they consume. One may argue that this is only necessary if the art is nonfiction and can have an impact on real life. But there’s also the point that art is inherently political. Even when it’s deliberately apolitical, there is a message that can still be categorised as good vs bad.
Moral grandstanding
The cancel culture debate becomes a problem because when an artist is “cancelled”, the people who endorse the cancelling want everyone else to follow suit. This creates a conundrum where the people consuming art by a problematic artist experience more blowback than the artist. When the Hogwarts Legacy game was released, video game content creators experienced extensive harassment for promoting transphobia. This is because of Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling’s alleged transphobia. The creators of Hogwarts Legacy explained that Rowling wasn’t involved in the creation of the game and it did go on to become the most profitable game of 2022. The push for a boycott backfired and ultimately, the existence of the game made no difference.
Moral grandstanding becomes a problem when people expect others to have a one-brush-fits-all all attitude when it comes to problematic artists. Studies show that people want to appear to be more morally superior than others, even unconsciously. Having more requirements of consumers rather than the artist conflates who the issue is. For example, when it was revealed that international commerce conglomerate, Amazon was subjecting its workers to horrible working conditions, ire on social media targeted anyone who still bought products using it. It can also lead to harassment of innocent parties and tries to polarise bystanders.
In this instance, it’s important for consumers to remember that some people have different things they can stomach. Some people aren’t bothered by the artist’s personal life and only really care about the art. There is a lack of nuance when it comes to addressing the fact that not all consumption can be purely moral.
Performative moralisation
The reason why many people have an unbending stance regarding their consumption of art is because they want to appear a certain way. Some people refuse to listen to Burna Boy because of all the rape allegations he’s facing. This is supposed to then be a beacon that they are anti-rape and aren’t proponents of rape culture. This is valid. However, it’s performative to expect people to never listen to Burna Boy if they want to show they don’t condone rape. Many people are likely unaware of these allegations so listening to him isn’t then a whale song for men who want to assault women.
Assuming that consuming art with a problematic artist is an endorsement of that artist’s lack of ethics is reductive. People consume art for different reasons, ranging from entertainment to comfort. When the art itself is problematic or unethical propaganda, that’s a whole different problem. Art that seeks to cause harm should be called out, condemned, avoided and usually, the harmful nature is visible. The artist’s intent is remorseless and, in that instance, endorsing such art is wrong. However, if the art is good, should we completely ignore the existence of its bad artist? It would be problematic for me to say.
Check out:
Koffi Olomide: Why We Should Condemn Any Kind Of Violence Against Women
Opinion: Why The Allegations Against Lizzo Don’t Erase Her Message Of Body Positivity
