**I like the idea of having art be its own thing, something that exists independently from whoever made it, something that can transcend any specific locality of having been made---but it's a bit difficult because the person who made the art is a huge layer _to_ the art and for good reason sometimes can't be totally disentangled from it.** - I like the idea of having art be its own realm, in a sense---something we can regard as living in its own world, at least most of the time, for the full experience of it. This way we can plumb the depths of a work as it lives and breathes on its own terms, a world unto itself. - A lot of artists who are socially cancelled nowadays do have the repercussions of either having their art removed or having people at least stop giving it attention. I personally tend to prefer the last option: Having it get less attention naturally rather than having rigid censorship come out to play. - This is because I believe it's at least somewhat hard to completely eviscerate an entire body of work if its creator turns out to be someone a lot of people find fault with. I think I mostly subscribe to the idea that the essence of the art itself still stays the same no matter what we learn about the person who created it. I like to think that world where the art lives and breathes on its own can transcend any particular circumstance. - If you think the essence of the artwork (and thus that "world unto itself" that it exists as) fundamentally changes when new lights are shined on its creator, then I could definitely see being convinced even more by the idea and practice of fully connecting the art and the artist rather than trying to keep them separate for the sake of the art itself. - Additionally, if there's a personal connection to what many are considering the problematic nature of the artist, I can understand the desire to find more control over that (personally) traumatic link of circumstances. Censorship at large could help someone fashion more control over something deeply and intensively traumatic to them. They might be able to get a sense of control in the world by feeling as though they can do something larger about something traumatic that happened to them, something that the behavior of the artist reminded them of. - In these cases, I tend to think that maybe a natural process of "change-making" in the world will kick in---either the activism towards censorship for personal reasons will take, or it won't, which I think is the natural course of activism.(Most likely, pockets of success will occur, where the work is censored, etc.; while other pockets might crop up wherein people still allow the work to hold sway culturally). - So I might argue for the course of action that just lets things go: Mostly separating the art from the artist, but letting some forms of attempted censorship take hold if they're naturally able to garner enough support. This may be not really saying too much beyond what is already fairly obvious/what already kind of happens, but I do personally feel like this large-scale natural selection of sorts might be the best way. Although: - With "naturally selective censorship" there is still the problem that for some cases, even any kind of "natural course" of censorship will eventually end at a point where one person or group decides for the majority. (For instance, the media house which is responsible for continuing to keep the art alive or not.) At which point, we are back to the original problem of whether art should be judged by the artist's behavior overall. - But I wonder if, in most cases, there is the possibility for art to be cancelled more naturally by individuals on the ground without the need for a decisive end-player in the censorship game. I'm not totally certain, anyway, which type of potential censorship is more common in this day and age of hyper-connected, hyper-fluid consumption, where individuals hold more sway over the decisions of media at large. (Think, e.g., the rise of streaming services---the success of any given show or movie depends much more now on how well it performs according to pure audience interest; the end-point players of media houses, etc. don't hold as much sway over whether things will be cancelled or not. Even if the big conglomerates try to keep something relevant amid potential cancellation, individuals have much more power from the ground up to disrupt that process.) - Overall, I like the idea of, when possible, separating the art from the artist and thinking of the art on its own terms sometimes just for the sheer experience of it. But of course, there can be good, natural reasons for people to try to naturally work things out with some kind of censorship, if enough people feel a certain way.

**ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide how much they are willing to overlook.** - i believe we have to ask ourselves why we insist on making bad people famous, and if our enjoyment of their work makes suffering worth it. it is hypocrisy to call out their behaviour and simultaneously lining their pockets and essentially funding what we hate. it also hurts in the long run, since it encourages more of the same to appear in future. - it can be argued that [by supporting an artist’s work, you are supporting the artist themself.](https://theappalachianonline.com/opinion-you-cant-separate-the-art-and-the-artist/) how can we ever know where they end and their art begins? the two are intrinsically linked. who they are is contained within their art. - if the artist has since passed and/or does not gain anything from streams (e.g. illegal downloads etc,) perhaps things may be different since they are not directly benefitting from the sales which is a pressing issue. if someone wishes to support the art of an artist they dislike, perhaps their ability to gain a tangible benefit from the purchase is an important one to take into consideration. - we are all flawed and no one is suggesting that every artist must be perfect, but there is a difference between honest mistakes and abuse or blatant hatred and discrimination for example. these things should be taken seriously and a ruined career is better than allowing a known vile person to keep destroying lives without any consequences. - however, we all must choose how much we are willing to see past. [wherever you draw that line, you have to live with it.](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a35508694/cancel-culture-joss-whedon-jk-rowling/)