Does the Art Equal the Artist?

Painting by Charles-François Pecrus

I like Taylor Swift. Lots of people don't, and that's totally fine, but my grandma said something to me about it a few months ago that made me think. "You shouldn't listen to Taylor Swift," she said, "because she's not a Christian." There are many different reasons a person might make this statement, but the one she gave was that because Taylor Swift was not a Christian, she "did not deserve" the success that she had, and that one should not support her art. 

Now I had several questions here, none of which I asked out loud, but all of which I will type out here. If you operate under the principle that you can only engage with art made by Christians, how can you watch any movie ever? You would have to find a film where you can guarantee that every single person from the actors to the screenwriters to the janitors on set were all Christians, and how can you guarantee that they are actually saved and not just lukewarm? It's completely impossible. If we are only to engage with art that we know without a shadow of a doubt is created by Christians, then we can't engage with art at all, because we can never know the true spiritual state of a person's heart. But my grandma watches movies. So there's a little bit of hypocrisy here, right? Because you've got a statement of a belief without acting on it. 

I have a different opinion, however. I would argue that you can appreciate a person's art without agreeing with their principles. Am I going to listen to songs like "False God" or "Karma"? Probably not. But can I appreciate Taylor Swift's music and talent? Absolutely. You don't have to agree with a person to acknowledge that they are talented and hard working, or to enjoy listening to a catchy song. Just as you can be friends with people you disagree with, you can also appreciate their artistry. 

"For the first time he was face to face with his hovering dread: he was judging where he still adored." -- Edith Wharton's The Custom of the Country

Take Carrie Underwood. She's incredibly talented, though I'm not her biggest fan personally, and she received a huge honor in being invited to sing at Donald Trump's 2025 Presidential Inauguration. (Yes, I am still mourning the fact that my flight got canceled.) This is a huge opportunity to be recognized at a major national event as a talented singer, yet some of her fans, instead of thinking "yay, Carrie is being recognized for her talent in this major way!" thought "BOO ORANGE MAN." Now, I acknowledge that the spray tan and the bleached combover are bad, but is that any reason to boycott Carrie Underwood? Can't you appreciate her rendition of "America the Beautiful" without hating her for being in the same room as the president?

Maybe I need a different example. A non-music example, perhaps. Take J. K. Rowling. Incredibly talented author who wrote one of the most famous children's series ever (also disliked by my grandma), yet people boycott Harry Potter and his cohorts because of Rowling's take on the transgender movement. Is she writing about being trans, or the lack thereof? Not that I recall. So why is it that a kid's series about wizards in middle school gets boycotted because the author has a completely unrelated opinion?

One last example (because giving examples is fun). Neil Gaiman, author of Coraline. Now, I personally am a total scaredy-cat, so I have neither read nor watched Coraline, but I have a general understanding of the plot. It's a widely successful story that has scared kids for years now, yet with recent allegations of sexual misconduct against the author, it's getting totally slammed. I don't know if these allegations are true, but regardless, the book, even copies that have already been bought and paid for years before, is being boycotted. 

So you get the idea. Someone makes art, that art is successful, and then years later, they say something people don't like, and suddenly that art is bad. But is that art necessarily equivalent to the artist? Is it an extension of them, and thereby validly hateable and cancelable?

"Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself. The reason I will not exhibit this picture is that I am afraid that I have shown in it the secret of my own soul." -- Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray

Surely, the art is intertwined with the artist in some way. It is impossible to create anything unbiased, especially art. Every piece will contain some part of the artist, will reflect some aspect of themselves. It is not an extension of the creator, but rather a reflection, just as the Christian believes that God's creation is "in his image." Art is an expression of a person's emotions, beliefs, and character, and it's impossible to hide this. But this connection between the art and the artist does not necessarily equate the two. 

"Talking about the 'meaning' of a story, we need to be careful not to diminish it, impoverish it. A story can say different things to different people. It may have no definitive reading. And a reader may find a meaning in it that the writer never intended, never imagined, yet recognizes at once as valid." -- Ursula K. Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

Maurizio Cattelan's Comedian

The artist is not the art, and the art is not the artist. They have distinctions. People can write stories that have nothing to do with their lives, and paintings can reflect not only the artist but also the artist's backyard or sister. While the art will always carry some touch of the artist, it is a separate entity, and can be interpreted in dozens of ways. The art may show some part of the artist, and mean something to the artist, but in this case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not only is the art a reflection of the artist and his or her beliefs, but also of the audience and their interpretation. When it comes to that stupid banana duct taped to a wall, I will always look at it and feel an intense rage at how stupid modern art is. I'll look at it and think the artist is really just a very persuasive con. Maybe he is, and maybe that's the part of him that's reflected through the banana. Someone else, on the other hand, might look at the banana and think, "Wow, that's the most beautiful and inspiring piece of dedicated artistry I've ever seen." 

Adolf Hitler's Schloss Neuschwanstein

On the other hand, this is a really gorgeous picture of a castle. You might also think it's a really gorgeous picture of a castle. What happens when you read the caption and see that Adolf Hitler painted that castle? Are you repulsed by his name and legacy? I hope so. Does the castle perhaps take on a threatening air? Maybe. But does the art become worse when you learn who made it? Can Hitler be a terrible person and still a good artist? I would argue yes. You can look at that painting and appreciate it for its art and beauty without being a Nazi. 

"But some will say, what though the inventors were bad, the thing for all that may be good. It may [be] so." -- John Milton's Areopagitica

And that's the whole point. Art is art. Is some art stupid? I think so. Are some people bad? All people are. Can bad people be good artists? Absolutely. And you can appreciate that without agreeing with the things that person has said and done. 

It's a lot more fun to do life with art. If you want to boycott art because you disagree with the artist, you can. (I'm pretty against AI-generated art, myself.) But take it from me, it's a whole lot more fun to be in awe at an art gallery than to be in protest.

"Novels tell us the truth about life: what it is, how we live it, what it might be for, how we enjoy and value it, and how we lose it." -- Julian Barnes's The Sense of an Ending