Analysing The Debate on Controversial Films And Filmmakers’ Place in Contemporary Society:
Can We Separate Art From The Artist To Enjoy Films?
I. Introduction
The film industry is in a never-ending dialogue of complicated discussion and debate, ones that question what counts as cinema and what doesn’t, or ones that evaluate ways spectators consume film to locate the most ideal. When observing discussions on film in very recent years, a topic that has been the core of a mass division among academics and everyday fans is the dispute of whether or not we can separate art from the artist when consuming and interpreting films. As audiences, we can do more than just simply watch films passively. We can connect with the style techniques of the story, visuals and characters in an emotional realm, in turn aligning our own identities and outlooks with the films we choose to watch. Our favourite films are an exegesis of our passions and interests in life, something we share with others to convey who we are and generate this same interest in others.
But what do we do when those favourite films we watch, love and connect with are made under controversial means or by controversial people who have displayed a severe absence of morals? Suppose audiences classify a film or a director’s filmography as representing parts of their identities and passions. Building from this, one has to ask do any problematic or corrupt elements tied to either the film or director also represent them.
These questions have been dissected and analysed in both academic and casual film-orientated discussions, with critics attempting to compromise a director’s unethical actions in real life, such as abuse or bigotry, with their artistry in quality filmmaking. However, as Elizabeth Shaffer cites, despite “the intersection between art and morality” being “a huge topic…the majority of scholarship dedicated to what happens when bad people make good art has stopped before posing a solution” (2019, Page 2). This shows the difficulty in initial attempts to approach this discussion, as the binary opposition between a “bad” person constructing “good” art effectively establishes the challenging compromise of the situation. The dominating element of our morality and emotional responses to enjoying a good film is when we know that the person who provided it for us does not uphold moral values. This can prove to be too close to home for a large number of people, and thus, a “solution”, as Schaffer says, is avoided for the time being. The lack of morals or ethics in question can reside in the techniques a director uses when making a film. A prominent example of this is Stanley Kubrick, who submitted his main actress Shelley Duvall to borderline abuse when filming The Shining. The matter becomes more complicated when observing how they can also be found in a director’s life outside his art, such as Roman Polanski, who made quality contributions to filmmaking in Rosemary’s Baby. However, the act of rape he committed against a minor ten years after the film’s release has clouded every move he has made since.
Taking knowledge of both these situations into account, film critics and consumers are faced with the challenges and dilemmas that come with this debate. Shaffer references how, when she consumes and critiques art pieces, she is “operating wholly under my (her) own moral compass and aesthetic taste” (2019, Page 2). These are the tools needed to decipher a ‘bad’ person who has made ‘good’ art, a process that incorporates issues of objectivity and subjectivity. The interpretation that art of any medium can be objectively good or bad is one that has been tackled and dissected consistently throughout art criticism. Films like The Shining and other Kubrick works are deemed objectively good, masterpieces even, by film scholars and fans. However, one can find that his actions during the filming of The Shining are subjectively bad due to a varied classification of what counts as abuse and perfectionism. One’s aesthetic taste can direct to regarding The Shining as a ‘good’ piece of art, and their moral compass can contrast this by citing Kubrick as a ‘bad’ person, but not a ‘bad’ artist.
The relationship between art, artist and consumer is challenged and explored in the debate of separating art from the artist. Some propose that you can separate art from the artist because of what art can mean to those who consume it, overriding whatever the artist did wrong, that art belongs to those it is made for. However, this is counteracted through the emphasis on the artist as the one who put time, creativity and effort into composing whatever medium of art they created. Some take the perception that “art is not created by the people. The poet, composer, or painter is the creator and can do as he pleases with his creations” (Wilkinson, 2010, Page 18), claiming the artist is the sole creator and should be held accountable for anything their art achieves. This dynamic between the creator, what they create, and the audience they create it for is a frequent addition explored in critical and casual readings on the matter.
I would propose the thesis that whilst a prominent majority argue that a severance between art and artist is possible, contemporary analysis on the matter signals mostly to the opposition; severance between the two cannot be done. I will be analysing academic works and casual film fan posts using CDA, hoping to identify the thematic values of both sides to draw a conclusion on the matter.
II. Kubrick and Duvall: When The Artist Goes Too Far For His Art
Kubrick’s enlivenment of Stephen King’s novel The Shining was released in 1980 as the 11th feature in the director’s filmography and his first contribution to horror. Despite an initial wave of criticism for tampering with the book upon release, there has been a re-evaluation. The film is now heavily praised in both horror and overall filmmaking. It is cited as one of the greatest horrors and films ever made, being ranked the 75th greatest film of all time in the Sight & Sound directors’ poll in 2012. As is the case with most globally iconic pictures, The Shining’s filmmaking history is branded in alleged trivia and stories, ones that are rather challenging to hear. The central point of focus in these stores lies in the performance of Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance, a performance that has been panned and attacked by both critics and film fans and resulted in Duvall receiving a Razzie award for worst performance.
In recent years, Duvall’s performance in the film has been reassessed and interpreted as an unfortunate repercussion of Kubrick’s perfectionism bleeding into his directorial methods. To achieve what he decided to be a believable performance in psychological horror, Kubrick tarnished the wall between reality and pretence by commanding the cast and crew to not show any sympathy for Duvall and asking them to ignore her completely. He placed all praise and encouragement on leading actor Jack Nicholson while submitting Duvall to criticism and verbal disappointment. Kubrick actively tried to maintain Duvall’s high-stress levels on set, all for the sake of art in his quest for an authentic performance on Duvall’s part, who channelled her emotional reactions into her acting as seen in the film. Duvall’s health and well-being deteriorated under this quest for art she did not consent to, evident in how “this intensive training of the mind with isolation and “torture” for the role was too stressful for Duvall to bear, who started losing hair and was “in and out of health”, having been pushed to the very threshold” (Sur, 2021).
Kubrick’s mistreatment of Duvall during the filming of The Shining has generated consistent controversy and debate on whether such actions are ethical when done for the objective of quality art. Is it morally right that Duvall was forced to endure psychological torture every day on set, with the only available outlet being her performance as Wendy just “to appease the filmmaker’s expectations regarding the character”? (Sur, 2021). Contemporary film culture appears to neglect Kubrick’s directorial methods. On March 31, 2022, the Razzie committee officially rescinded Duvall’s nomination, stating, “We have since discovered that Duvall’s performance was impacted by Stanley Kubrick’s treatment of her throughout the production”.
III. Polanski
The issue of separating art from its artist to enjoy it freely can also derive when aligning the artist’s antics alongside the quality of their official work. Polish-French director Roman Polanski contributed to cinema history in his adaptation of Ira Levin’s psychological novel Rosemary’s Baby, released in 1968 and cementing the director’s place in filmmaking. Likewise to Kubrick’s cinematic take on The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby received critical acclaim upon release and continues to this day, being ever credited as one of the greatest horror films of all time. As high quality and praised as the film rightfully is, spectatorship and interpretation of the overall film and its subject matter were compromised upon Polanski’s conviction after raping a minor during a photography session in 1977. In an attempt to avoid his sentencing, the director fled to Paris, where he received protection and has since avoided repercussions for his actions. Despite his crimes, Polanski continues to make films that are widely watched and well-received, even obtaining a standing ovation at the Oscars in 2002, exactly 25 years after his act of assault.
Observing Rosemary’s Baby’s thematic material and characterisation under this knowledge of Polanski generates unsettling and confusing outlooks. The film is about the physical and psychological abuse of women and the exploitation of their bodies. It is evident in how Rosemary is used to carrying and birthing the antichrist for a Satanic cult and is gaslit whenever she voices uncertainty or resistance. Under the interpretation of the film critiquing women being exploited in this manner, one can only conclude this narrative is hypocritical and perplexing when this is exactly what Polanski did himself to a female child. However, suppose the interpretation of a critique is removed. In that case, the film automatically becomes laced with a sinister and sickening undertone, almost as if Polanski is manoeuvring the film to be an exercise of his outlook on women. As mentioned, the film’s plot is adapted from a book; while Polanski did not write the actual story, he still chose to bring it to the big screen. It is even stated that Polanski contacted Evans immediately after finishing the book to tell him it was an “interesting project” he would love to adapt.
After consideration and any evaluation of this mass context when watching Rosemary’s Baby, separating the art from the artist soon becomes unobtainable in this example. Audiences sometimes struggle to stomach Polanski’s work, so much so that there have been incidents of direct action against him, such as “feminist groups in France have regularly staged protests against Mr Polanski, including outside a retrospective of his career at the prestigious Cinémathèque in October 2017 (Alderman and Peltier, 2019).
IV. The Debate Of Separating Art From The Artist In Readings
Proceeding from the outlines of prominent examples in this debate, there have been proposals that separating art from the artist in consumption is a possibility, thus, arguing one can enjoy The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby for the highly-rated contributions to their craft that they are on the surface.
Writing for The Daily Free Press, Eden Mor tackles the challenge of disassociating the two with an immediate establishment and admitting that she felt guilty when consuming art from a problematic creator. This emotional response of guilt is a frequent occurrence in the discussion around separating art and the artist, as well as one alleged reason that it cannot be done. Therefore, one can identify emotions of guilt as a theme in this debate and research it. However, Mor attempts a counteraction to this by asking if there is logic and rationality in the argument that you can’t separate the two, does it “make sense to associate…actions…with the art?” (2021). This standpoint varies on the example to which we are applying it; some artists have committed acts that are a lesser evil when compared to others. Taking this standpoint under the hypothetical answer of no and applying it to Polanski’s films, it is possible to separate the artist from his art. Focusing on Rosemary’s Baby following the outline of context, one has to consider that Polanski isn’t responsible for creating the story, characters and messages. The author Levin has to receive the credit for what the film presents to its audiences, as it was his imagination that conjured up Rosemary as a character and the events she engages with. Mor alludes to this consideration by mentioning how countless people are paid when one consumes art, not just the one director who may be “the face” but “there are hundreds of other people profiting” (2021). When watching a film, one must consider that despite the head figure of a director leading the actors, what you see on screen can also result from the actor’s interpretation of the character. Mia Farrow (Rosemary) is the one who pours emotion into the role to, in turn, generate an emotional response in audiences. She deserves just as much credit for bringing Levin’s character from page to screen to life as a result of her chosen craft as Polanski does for his. Thus, the incorporation of other professionals involved in a film negotiates to grant a sole figure full credit. Mor expands her stance on the matter by bringing it directly to the audience, who are responsible for separating the art from its artist. Mor communicates her belief that “there isn’t a yes or no answer to this question. The art which you consume — whether it be movies, TV shows or music — is your own decision” (2021). This illustrates a conclusion offered to those undecided on the debate, one that can be explained as separating art from the artist exists as a “personal decision” (2021). Overall, Mor’s contribution to the matter is concerned with a reason as supported by a broader picture being evaluated, one that hands responsibility to audiences following this objective and thorough inspection and illustrates the debate as something that cannot be decided on without this.
Any counteraction to this claim is never far behind, evident in Ella Adams’ commentary on the matter as read in The Appalachian. Adams assures an overall contextual awareness in the opening of her opinion article, made clear in how she acknowledges social media’s placement as “the conversation on whether you can separate the art and the artist is hotly debated in social media comment sections whenever a new scandal involving a popular artist pops up” (2021). When tying this to the two established case studies, this is evident in film Twitter accounts posting about Rosemary’s Baby on the anniversaries of its release, where the comments will be split between praising the film itself and mentioning how Polanski is a paedophile and confusion about why the film is being posted due to this, combated with the debate. Adams echoes Mor’s interpretation in highlighting that “art is a personal expression of one’s perspective of the world. A piece of art’s relationship and meaning to its creator is exactly what makes it art.” (2021). However, Adams uses this element of the debate to provide a counteraction that you cannot separate, stating “because art is so personal…filmmakers and other artists cannot be separated from their creations” (2021). This is relevant to both case studies as a personal tie is employed. This element of personal expression serves as a further theme in the discussion’s research. Kubrick’s take on filmmaking and directing his cast is the controversy surrounding his work The Shining, and Polanski’s crimes bleed easily into the narrative and message of Rosemary’s Baby. When taking these examples into account, it can become rather controverting to propose you can separate art from the artist because of how much of the artist exists in the art. Adams progresses with this reasoning by highlighting the issue of income and profit as derived from art consumption, “art can also be a means of income. By supporting an artist’s work, you are supporting the artist themself,” when audiences consume art, they “support his (the artist) career and ability to create more content” (2021). This point of capital given to the artist, as another key theme, is a prominent addition when observing the matter of audience consumption, the fact that artists who have done wrong gain financial aid through being distanced from their work for the sake of consumption and enjoyment create a great deal of unsettlement. Adams’ argument is centred around this aspect, that the power that comes with the capital these artists receive outweighs any other claim to separate them from their art. Therefore, a difficult compromise is proposed when seeking any outcome to the debate.
Commenting on the debate in Triton Times, writer Reid Corley opposes the arguments similar to those seen in Adams’ piece with an immediate establishment of his ‘you can’ stance. He writes, “there must be a separation of art from the artist, especially given the current era we live in”, highlighting how he claims to be evaluating this stance under contemporary attitudes, an interesting thing to assure as most examples in this debate took place decades ago. Corley navigates his argument with a hierarchy of art consumption, stating that if we wish “to maintain the diversity of film and appreciate the artistic passion and creativity of individuals for the sake of the product, we must employ separation” (2019). Thus, Corley is proposing we place an art’s display of passion and creativity above artists’ actions. He progresses with the acknowledgement of “the backlash people receive from supposedly “endorsing” artists’ behaviour” when consuming their art, something fans of The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby are familiar with as the directors’ actions heavily cloud the films. However, there resides the opposition to this in Corley’s claim that “the appreciation for a piece of art should not indicate or imply the endorsement of the morality and actions of the artist”, thus, outlining the perspective that consuming and loving art has no place in being tied to supporting artists’ actions. This is a clear and precise negotiation of the attitudes as shown by Adams and others in perceiving art to be a personal exegesis of its artist. It relies on the ability to perceive and interpret the art purely on what the art is, not what its creator did or said. It is implied that Corley separates the two inevitably and with no further consideration, conveying that the art and whatever it is expressing is his biggest priority. Corley adds to this argument in an acknowledgement of others who contributed to the body of work, claiming that “to throw out an entire work for the sake of the involvement of one person is unfair to the thousands of others who work on projects” (2019). Here, Corley is supporting the previously outlined proposal that by dismissing Rosemary’s Baby, one also indirectly dismisses the effort Farrow put into her title performance, which is unarguably unfair to her. Corley strategically concludes his stance piece by communicating his standpoint that in claiming you cannot separate the art from its artist, one is employing the artists’ crimes as a measurement of art, something he perceives as wrong because “if we continue to dig up the crimes and vices of artists and use that in our judgment of art, we are openly evading satisfaction and pleasure from the artistic expression” (2019). In his conclusion, Corley argues for sake of enjoyment and remaining unbias in consuming and interpreting art because “it is not only necessary but imperative we establish this division” (2019). The division in question is between what a piece of art can bring and anything immoral its creator did. Overall, Corley’s verdict on the matter emanates from focusing on art specifically and what it can provide for audiences.
When conjoining his opinions with the case study films, one could conclude that Corley would advise watching The Shining under the analytical scope of what it shows about filmmaking and storytelling, to subtract Kubrick’s actions from the equation and instead recognise how the film represents a great deal of what makes visual horror. This would mean not even considering any information of what happened during filming to create the final product as it brings nothing to the final and ever-present imprint or messages the film has in its overall craft. This would be likewise when observing Polanski and Rosemary’s Baby, in that one who is consuming the film for the piece of film art it is should do so in the tunnel vision of its commentary on false pretences in seemingly prestige conservative societies and women’s liberation. However, as Corley emphasises the importance of art’s potential messaging from an isolated perspective, he falls short in considering the financial gain problematic artists gain from this and the power this provides. This, in turn, subtracts objective analysis of the debate under all potential arguments.
Ashley Griffin contributes to the discussion via OnStageBlog, where she opens rather heavily and emotionally with a reference to Dylan Farrow’s open letter about the abuse she endured at the hands of her filmmaking stepfather, Woody Allen. Griffin highlights how in the letter, Farrow asks, “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.” (1994). The section of the letter Griffin focuses on strategically ends with Farrow’s statement, “Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.” (1994), which sets up both the tone and the stakes of the piece and the debate. Using this personal letter, Griffin is transferring the heavy emotional burden that resides in the debate of separating art from the artist, something she accentuates by mentioning her own abuse to develop the tone and stating how her experiences led her to decide “maybe I’m the perfect person to have this conversation about separating art from the artist” (2021). This emotive weight carries through the psychological abuse Duvall suffered in order to create a character in The Shining as well as the trauma Polanski’s young victim is now left with; Griffin makes sure to acknowledge this in writing “people who have experienced abuse and, because of their experiences, are triggered and forever impacted when the artist is ignored so that their art can be untarnished” (2021). Griffin emphasises the consideration that “there may not BE a way to have a truly neutral discussion about it”, proposing there are minimal opportunities to be objective, proposing an answer to why many written takes on the matter fail to be.
However, she does take a moment to consider the separation is a possible stance, expressing the claim that “but if every artist has to have a perfect, upstanding moral character we’d never consume art again. No one could live up to those standards” (2021), a statement she does agree with “to some degree” (2021). As a method of compromising with both sides, Griffins argues for informed consumption because, in her eyes, “there’s a difference between censoring something because of a disagreement about the content and censoring because the creator is a bad person” (2021). This conveys how Griffins is distinguishing the standard responses to problematic art made by a problematic person when the root of the problematic classification can be varying. To Griffins, one has to recognise and assign where the controversy lies in the consumption of a piece of art, as this can influence the issue of separation. This could be interpreted as being directed to the emotive and intellectual responses audiences make to art, meaning that if the art itself is problematic in subject matter, then it calls for censorship easier than if the artist were to have committed a problematic act. Therefore The Shining has the potential to remain consumed and praised because it is not problematic in the subject matter. Instead, it is a well-told horror story. However, Griffins finalises her own personal stance with a clear assignment of guilt to herself when consuming art she knows to be made by a controversial figure. She states how she “can’t help feeling a bit icky” (2021) whenever she engages with the art, and this is something she claims is “not an intellectual discussion I have with myself. It’s a gut response” (2021), thus, proposing the response is instinct over intellectual evaluation. This can relate to the case of Polanski in that Griffins would be unable to watch Rosemary’s Baby or any of his other films without a fight or flight response of negative feelings stemming from the knowledge of his paedophilia, thus, implying that separation between art and creator is virtually impossible due to this inner and natural emotional response. Griffins is clearly centring emotion in her piece and, in turn, looking away from a rational standpoint which is an occurring theme in the online discourse on the matter.
Unlike pieces previously analysed, Griffins draws attention to an outer audience and references opinions and interpretations other than her own, stating she recognises “those who are most willing to do mental gymnastics to justify continued enjoyment of works by newly revealed problematic creator” (2021). This highlights the potential strategy that has kept figures like Polanski free from persecution despite his crimes; film consumers connect to certain works to such a strong degree that repression and negotiation follow as cognitive responses when faced with any immoral acts committed by the film creators. Through this statement, Griffins acknowledges the intimate relationship between creator and consumer and the sphere of art reception. She suggests that emotional ties to a visual piece of art can override facts surrounding the artist in her argument; people push themselves to repress the knowledge and guilt to enjoy art. Griffins diplomatically follow with the aftermath of this repression on the audiences’ part, as she connects support with helping artists hide as through this repression when consuming, “money is going into their pockets…their power in the industry is strengthened” (2021). This is offered as a direct consequence and criticism of separating art from the artist; to make this severance means to allow abusers such as Polanski to still flourish under financial aid. In her conclusion, Griffins advises art consumers to search out alternate methods of consuming art and hold people accountable rather than cancel, as “if you do want to continue consuming a problematic artist’s art, find ways to do so that won’t financially profit them” such as using a library to take out films. A further piece of advice is to counteract any controversy in artmaking by making “your own good art” as “that means it’s your turn to make a platform for yourself” (2021). Overall, Griffins’ articulation on the debate of separating art from the artist is one that exists between an intimate and first-person experience as well as an exterior examination of what the majority do to ensure separation.
In 2018, Constance Grady opens her piece titled ‘ What Do We Do When The Art We Love Was Created By A Monster?’ with a direct and potential answer. She writes, “One of the common answers to that question has been repeated so often it has come to seem as though it’s an ontologically self-evident truth: You must separate the artist from the art”(2018), conveying how this side of the debate is treated as one that is non-negotiable as it is a universal ‘truth’. She continues by including how “separating the artist from the art, this argument goes, is the best way to approach all art, no matter what you try to get from it. And to fail to do so is both childish and gauche because only philistines think it necessary to reconcile their feelings about a piece of art with their feelings about the people who created it.”(2018). This statement draws from the argument for a separation with reference to its emphasis on an alleged logic. This trait can be interpreted as what makes this stance a “universal truth”. However, Grady counteracts this claim using an overarching perspective and observation of art criticism; “the idea of separating the artist from the art is not a self-evident truth. It is an academic idea that was extremely popular as a tool for analyzing poetry [art] at the beginning of the 20th century, and that has since evolved in several different directions” (2018). Grady is criticising classifying ‘you can separate art from the artist’ as a universal truth by considering how critics have manoeuvred the stance in a way that allows further analysis of art to branch it into a scientific realm, as it eliminates acknowledgement of who created it which can cause tension. This displays an ideology that explores and questions art’s potential essence because it’s negotiating any corruption in an artist’s character in a quest to push the actual art itself to higher boundaries.
Grady elaborates by underlining how critics call for an evaluation of art based on its ability to ‘stand-alone, as “the text had to stand on its own, and if it didn’t, the New Critics argued, that proved it wasn’t really good art” (2018). This highlights ideas of separating art from the artist, such as claiming art is only of quality when one can consume and acclaim it with no reference to who the artist is or what they’ve done prior, as “the best way to engage with any really good piece of art is to treat it as a transcendent work that can stand on its outside of history and speak to anyone from any place and time.” (2018). Essentially, Grady establishes how the mindset of consuming and critiquing art based on its ability to transcend from any indication of its creator and instead exist as its own artistic entity influences the separating art from the artist debate. This is an analytical lens that calls for an emphasis on art and art alone, generating critics and consumers to have a tunnel interpretation of asking what is the art saying. Furthermore, it is prompting that consuming art to conclude that the art’s quality relies on being able to perceive it without the artist’s influence. When tying this to our case studies, one would conclude that the New Critics Grady references would direct film fans to watch The Shining as a horror film and decipher their stance on it based on its ability to generate the appropriate emotional response and its quality in visuals and storytelling. Therefore, Kubrick’s methods and any behind-the-scenes knowledge would have to be absent from consumption and interpretation.
This mindset can be negotiated or made difficult when it relates to ideas of audience identity and stance when watching films and other forms of media. To elaborate, if one watches The Shining as a horror fan, then this would be a simple route to take because, for them, the art is standing separate from its creator as they focus on genre and its effect. However, suppose one watches and interprets The Shining from a Kubrick fan rather than a horror fan. In that case, this mindset is challenging as they are watching for the creator and the creator alone, thus, consistently considering Kubrick and his complicated methods when viewing. As a result, audience identity and what has drawn the spectator to the film significantly challenge the stance New Critics are calling for. Anyone consuming The Shining under the identity of a Kubrick fan would potentially be submitting to Auteur theory, the belief that the director is the head creative force behind the film as a whole who imprints their own identity and vision onto a script, thus, “the film artist is thought to make films in the same way the writer creates books” (Demiray, 2015).
Kubrick’s position as an auteur filmmaker with a distinct style proposes complications with consuming any art outside the artist as the New Critics strive for. His recognisable vision in filmmaking collects a dedicated fanbase who consume his work for him. Therefore, they reflect back to him as a creator when consuming his art. This leads to further stances against separating art from the artist, in that if the director leaves such a heavy imprint on their work that it becomes an extension of their identity, then it becomes challenging to separate them as a person from what they have created. However, whilst “classic auteur theory has commanded much of film scholar debate since the 1960s”(Tredge, 2013) and, thus, has influenced the audience’s perception in associating a film so heavily with its director, it can be negotiated as the set in stone outlook. One can argue against both auteur theory and its impact on the debate when considering the numerous roles that exist in filmmaking other than the director. To elaborate, “feature films are never made by a single person. From the writer to the director to the studio executives, many ideas and hours of hard work go into collaborating on film production. It is important to know that one theory of authorship will not answer the question for all films” (Tredge, 2013), an attitude previously explored by Corley. Expanding from Corley, this can liberate a film from any controversy or lack of morals its director holds because it removes the director as the sole provider, thus, proposing audiences consume a film no matter any errors on the director’s part. Under this attitude, one can recognise the other efforts and creativity that went into creating Rosemary’s Baby or The Shining, such as the score composers who assist in executing the atmosphere or the actors who bring the script to life. Overall, one can use the stance of a film as “a primarily collaborative medium” to identify how it would “seem odd that theorists are constantly searching for the singular artist responsible for authorship (Gerstner and Staiger 5)” (Tredge, 2013), thus, separating art from its artist (in this case the director) becomes inevitable due to the other credits a film has in creation.
In his article On The Possibility Of Separating Art From The Artist in The Stanford Daily, Jacob Kuppermann offers an opinion that issues counteractions to these ideas. He references how this debate is heavily significant and present in entertainment and cultural discussions as “there is perhaps no story repeated more often in the annals of pop culture than that of the brilliant artist who is revealed to be a vile person” (2017), offering the binary opposition of a “brilliant artist” who can offer amazing art to negotiate how they are a “vile person”. He recounts previous and overall dialogue on the matter to solidify his own upcoming opinion, for example, highlighting “the idea that we must not abandon works of art solely because of the misdeeds of their creators is a popular one” which created a decision that the “only thing that should matter when experiencing a work of art is what’s actually going on in the work itself” (2017). This constructs a narrative thread for his readers using a planting of immediate perspectives on such a complicated debate, in turn, creating anticipation for his own take that may agree or disagree, which he soon offers in “I agree that personal guilt is not a useful part of the work of critically assessing artists who have done reprehensible things, but the idea that a work must only be evaluated based on its direct content is trickier”. Here, Kuppermann is communicating the opposition between having emotional responses to art made by a controversial figure and the critical and logical observation needed to come to a conclusion. This opposition in question is stemmed from how emotional reactions prevent critical evaluation of information even though they are cognitive processes resulting in the gathering of information. By deeming emotions of guilt and shame as “not useful”, Kuppermann is critiquing delving into emotions during this discussion and branding the act as an interruption in evaluation. This proposes moving forward into a more logical headspace once one has classified the emotions of guilt towards an art they enjoy upon finding out the artist is problematic.
Furthermore, Kupperman proposes a counteraction to the rejection of auteur theory in finding a solution. He does so by proposing a filmmaker chooses to invest personally in their project as“the artists themselves don’t separate themselves from their work” (2017), an outlook made evidently in Kubrick’s emphasis on himself as an auteur. This makes it difficult to separate the artist from their work because“a critical approach that refuses to consider outside factors is limited and foolish, blinding us from a full consideration of any creative work” (2017). To Kupperman, one cannot eliminate consideration of external factors in creating art, such as Kubrick’s emotionally taxing director methods used to make his film, because it refuses to observe the art fully. Essentially, Kupperman is questioning the rejection of how the art was made in a problematic manner by arguing it means rejecting a large portion of the artistic product itself. He carries his argument on by adding a further emphasis on auteurship and the personal elements of creating art, stating how“in modern pop culture, persona and identity so deeply intermingle with art that the artist themselves often becomes impossible to disentangle from their art fully. Consider the films of Woody Allen. The protagonists of movies like “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan,” in all of their neuroticism and sexual dysfunction, are less characters and more proxies for the director himself, who plays all three” (2017). This serves as a critical element in separating art from the artist debate, calling out how directors can invest a huge amount of themselves into their films and manoeuvre them to be an extension of their own emotions, lifestyles and persona and therefore negotiate the ability to be separated from their art by having their art be them. The extreme emotional range Duvall displayed in The Shining is a direct result of Kubrick’s belief in creating a real-life psychological breakdown to portray a fictitious one. Polanski’s real-life actions sinisterly align with the conflict and oppressive themes represented in Rosemary’s Baby. Their intimate attitudes and perspectives are elements of their filmmaking with regard to narrative, visuals and themes, thus combining themselves and their art.
Kupperman further emphasises cognition and logic when evaluating art made by controversial figures by highlighting the specific processes audiences go through, as “to appreciate one of these films while simultaneously remaining aware” of an artist’s problematic behaviour “is an exercise in cognitive dissonance” (2017). This mirrors Griffins’ exploration of the mental justifications made to enjoy art for art despite the knowledge the creator lacks morals. Yet, Kupperman cites it as dissonance and, thus, the elimination of harmony between art and what the creator did. This displays a more in-depth evaluation of the emotional and psychological aspects involved when it comes to separating the art from the artist, one that locates the processes one inherits to be able to do so as distancing the artist’s act from their work to fully appreciate the work as its own physical entity. To gain some objectivity in his piece, Kupperman goes on to examine why and how one could not separate the two, as “every creative work is inherently the unique product of the person (or persons) who made it” (2017), implying the relationship that comes from someone creating a piece of work may be too powerful to separate. Kupperman makes an example of this in how the “same minds” that create works are the same ones that can “sexually assualt” numerous people, conveying how “the personal elements of their crafts are powered by the same people who have done despicable things” (2017). This “ever-present blurring of the lines between the personal and creative spheres” serves as a compromise to separating art from the artist in Kuppermann’s eyes. The personal acts artists commit cannot be severed from their art because both are products of the same person. Kuppermann progresses this perspective by incorporating a familiar criticism of any attempt to distance the art from the problematic artist, as “the fact of the matter is, in our capitalistic, fame-obsessed culture, being a critically or commercially successful artist gains you a significant amount of influence. This influence, when in the hands of certain unfortunate individuals, can be leveraged to do harm to others” (2017). Here, Kupperman is pinpointing the capital and power artists gain when audiences consume and support their work, presenting it as a gateway to further assaults and immoral acts. This argument dresses the debate in the manner of it not mattering if one can separate art from the artist but instead should one separate the two? This brings the issues of ethics and morality straight to the art’s audiences rather than just the artist themself, prompting those engaging in the debate to reflect on their own morals as implied by their standpoint.
Kupperman situates the stance that you can make the separation against the credentials needed for it to be maintained, the same ones that are associated with issues of ethics and morality. He informs that “separating the art from the artist would be a perfectly sound critical school among many in an ideal world, one where the power dynamics and imbalances fueled by fame and industry influence did not exist and were not vital tools used by sexual predators of all stripes” (2017). This works to identify and call out the idiocies in the entertainment industry that inflict onto the separation debate, ones that Kuppermann is presenting as valid reasons to not separate art from its artist as these are detrimental issues for victims and those vulnerable. To Kupperman, to separate art from the artist means to ignore the harmful abuse of power that problematic artists carry out once audiences have ignored previous acts to enjoy the selected art. This is supported by Kupperman’s direct acknowledgement of the victims who have suffered at the hands of abusive artists. He addresses how “by creating a culture that excuses the misdeeds of the powerful, talented or rich, we make it harder for their victims, from fellow celebrities to anonymous teenagers, to retain their dignity in society” (2017), which demonstrates the emotional turmoil victims go through. This situates the debate further against the emotional aspect, mentioning how society separating art from a problematic artist allows victims to suffer and remain publicly humiliated. This very statement supports the stance of not separating art from the artist. It emphasises how separating the two prioritises a physical art piece over a person who has been exploited and left traumatised, thus, displaying a grounded perspective that calls for emotional well-being to be considered.
Russell Smith wrote his opinions on the debate the same year as Kupperman, therefore, has the same amount of knowledge on relevant events. However, his take differs vastly. He is immediately in illustrating his stance by stating to his readers, “the knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed, I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violent man” (2017). Therefore, Smith displays confidence in his ability to automatically serve art from the actions of its creator. He does, however, suggest some form of conjoining high-quality art with the disturbing acts of its artists, which is something unfamiliar in academic discourse, implying that one should delve into the bitter irony surrounding the perspective. Smith does echo previous pieces analysed in shifting from his own personal experience with consuming art to an overall cultural experience, done so when analysing any judgment he receives for separating art from the artist. He writes, “and if I do this and am judged immoral for it, is it because it is bad for just me or bad for society at large?” (2017), conveying the potential argument that engaging with art made by problematic people has detrimental effects on our society as a whole. This does make sense to a degree because it alludes to supporting abusive figures who exploit the power consumption of their art provides, something Smith considers in highlighting “the problem of engaging with art by bad people, it is said, is an economic one”(2017). This is expanded on when Smith underlines the overall issues in the entertainment industry and supports abusive figures such as Polanski, as “ it is also argued that the culture of movie-making in Hollywood is pervasively sexist and abusive and that contributing to its economic success as a whole is a subtle approval of its tactics. An essayist in The New York Times tweeted that “the critical acclaim and economic clout of the art facilitate the abuse.” (2017). Smith is directly referencing other conclusive statements on the matter. Such statements are drawn from an overall observation of the dangerous aftermaths of still providing finances for someone like Polanski. This proposal still praising his work, allows his sexual abuse to fester and flourish.
Despite this, Smith remains grounded in his stance that separation is both possible and needed. He supports this stance by opposing the syntax used when it comes to discussing consuming art made by controversial figures, shown in “I want to take issue with the idea of “enjoying” art as well. Yes, one does enjoy it, sometimes, but that’s far from the only reason for art’s existence” (2017), thus, challenging the ways people have been discussing and evaluating the debate by suggesting their view on art and its purpose has been one dimensional and therefore, lacklustre. Smith’s worldview on the matter is given as “to consume art is for me as necessary a means of understanding the culture around me as reading the news is; it is necessary and automatic, almost involuntary” (2017). This grants art as an educator, similar to what Grady’s presentation of the New Critics was underlining. Smith is illustrating how art isn’t just wanted for entertainment purposes and is instead a vital window into societal views during any time of creation. Therefore, it holds intellectual merit alongside enjoyment. Smith goes on to dissect this newfound intellectual aspect of art as a medium, tying it into his reasoning of separating any art from a problematic creator in stating how “If I were to stop delving into unpleasant, embarrassing or possibly immoral art for any reason, I would feel cut off from my own intellect. I would feel stupid” (2017). Here, Smith argues for the separation between art and artist for the alleged sake of intellect that art offers, regardless of its content or tone. This emphasises art’s ability to stand on its own, separate from its creator, in generating cognitive action in the form of education for audiences. Essentially, Smith is asking his readers to consider that, no matter what the creator of artwork has done, the potential education art can offer has to exceed the controversial actions because it can elevate individuals and society.
Smith continues in his stance of separation being possible by stating his opinion in consuming art aligns inherently with upholding its direct subject matter. He communicates how he is “baffled, genuinely baffled, by the idea that by consuming art one is somehow perpetuating the ideas in it”(2017), a clear emotive presentation of his viewpoint. This showcases a precise separation between the act of engaging with art and agreeing with any distasteful content it demonstrates, something that can be made evident when looking at Rosemary’s Baby as watching a horror film about a woman being exploited doesn’t automatically mean one agrees women should be exploited for childbearing. Instead, the film is being viewed and loved for its quality display of emotive genre filmmaking with regard to visuals and storytelling. This display is frequently used in the education of filmmaking, even 54 years post-release. Using Smith’s well-argued logic, Rosemary’s Baby is used as a tool example in teaching what makes a high-quality film has to relate to Polanski’s sexual misconduct. Is it an endorsement of it rather than a direct celebration of the film itself as a piece of visual art and that alone? Furthermore, Smith supports his stance using the thoroughly and frequently discussed issue of artists gaining financial aid when their work is supported, stating, “I get the concern about the financial support of criminals, but that economic question really only applies to living artists and only to certain art forms” (2017). This argument is limited in where it can be applied as not every controversial artist dies before any knowledge of their crimes or mishaps emerges. For example, one can carry on watching The Shining and purchasing any merchandise related as Kubrick has been deceased for 22 years now, thus, liberating consumers from the mental war of economically supporting a problematic creator. However, Polanski is unfortunately still alive, therefore, still benefits financially from engagement with his work. This means one has to await his passing in order to freely enjoy his films. Even then, this only tackles the issue of finances and not ethics or morality. Overall, Smith’s argument in the debate proves to be thorough and holds interesting content in distinguishing art from being purely entertainment based and instead intellectual and educational.
Noah Keate submitted a piece on the debate for The Boar in October 2021, one that opens with the ethical area. He begins his article with the summary statement, “questions of morality prove themselves to be so enriching and exciting, to me at least, precisely because they are the guiding force for how humans can live their best life” (2021); thus, outlining the theme of morality as a principle perspective to interpreting his piece. He goes on to incorporate art and its definition, proposing the attempt to identify a direct definition is never-ending. However, one can conclude that “artistic creations relate to how humans seek to express something to others and pinpoint their view on the world” (2021). This again ties art with the purpose of personal expression, as previously mentioned, as well as assisting in constructing an outlook of society as a whole. This is placed in Keate’s piece as what is compromised or potentially lost when he follows this with the concept of expressive art being created by an immoral person. He attaches the two by articulating, “there then comes the question of whether we can separate loving artistic creations while also loathing the individuals who made such pieces of work” (2021). This poses the binaries of good art and bad people who are artists against one another. Like many academic writers, Keate places the idea of good art before the unethical creator when articulating the concept, thus, implying the line of thought he and others have on the matter. The fact that the art piece is of high quality in expression and education comes before the fact the artist has committed immoral acts, therefore, echoing how one initially goes to praise a work of art but is then reminded of the sour downside involving the creator. Keate immediately proposes his solution to this issue by swapping the binaries’ placement in his statement, “an individual artist may have made some wicked remarks should not detract from the fact that their art, which could be completely unrelated, remains superb” (2021). This outlines the belief that the personal actions of the artist have no correlation with the quality or effect of their art. Keate is foregrounding art’s importance, despite the framing of the statement putting art second, in an attempt to saviour it from the crimes of its creator. To Keate, “art as a worthwhile end and something to celebrate, regardless of the creator themselves” (2021). Therefore, isolates art to be its own separate entity that provides benefits for people and culture. He states a more personal perspective to exemplify this thought process “an artist might have political views I deplore, but I still should be able to appreciate their art from that”. Here, Keate offers a clear and precise division between art and artist. Not only that, but Keate suggests that this should be done, which is an interesting contrast to the previously proposed questions of whether should art be separated from the artist rather than just can it be? Keate gives an answer of yes to the question of ‘should’ and directs it to art, arguing one has to appreciate art separately from its artist.
He provides a contextual example within the case study of Polanski, stating“while I will always deplore Roman Polanski, I would never campaign for his films to be censored”. Once again, Keate prioritises art, in terms of film, despite an acknowledgement of Polanski’s crimes. This implies that one can and should appreciate good art as long as there is an acknowledgement that the artist has not demonstrated morality. Keate concludes his piece by illustrating “there should be a celebration that artistic judgement — both of the art and artist — can only come with artistic freedom”, meaning people should be free to consume and critique art how they please because “the public are individually entitled to have whatever view on the culture they like”.
Academics and cultural entertainment journalists tackle the debate of separating art from the artist using a thorough and intellectually driven landscape. Their pieces inspect multiple areas of the discussion at a time, analysing art’s multiple purposes and their extents, in addition to analysing the ethical elements on both the artist's and audience’s part. Crucial stages of both the creation and consumption realm of an art piece are explored as a means of identifying potential arguments for either side. Authors sophistically outline both sides to present an objective dissection. No matter what their proposed one is, the other is marked off in analysing. This shows a genuine objective of and concern in locating an authentic solution to a challenging discussion. Those who argued for art to be separated from artists displayed an emphasis on the art itself and what it means for culture and entertainment, implying that art’s purpose can override an artist’s actions when its quality means it impacts society and audiences enough. However, the other stance outlines their morals, arguing that allowing abusive people to gain financial growth because they are good artists is unethical. This demonstrates the highlight of who the artist is as a person and audience responsibility, rather than focusing on any impact their art has.
V. The Debate Of Separating Art From The Artist In Online Discourse
Casual conversations among general film fans who may not study film academically are something that is added to every day, sometimes jumping from one extreme side to the other daily. This provides an opportunity to observe and analyse opinions and questions directly from the general public who choose to consume or ignore the art in question.
The immediate online site one can find almost infinite film discussion on is Letterboxd, a social networking platform designed for fans to share opinions on films and chart what they watch, with the former being done so through reviews. This provided insight into recent opinions on both my case study films and directors, for example, the re-evaluation of Duvall’s performance in The Shining following examination of Kubrick’s extreme methods. This shift in attitudes is identified in the freely structured Letterboxd reviews, such as “The fact that Shelley Duvall is constantly overlooked whenever I see anyone talk about this film is a fucking crime, especially considering the mental and emotional abuse Kubrick caused her so she could maintain a realistic performance and critics didn’t even mention her once upon this film’s release”. This highlights a calling for Duvall to receive some sort of justice for what she endured on the set of Kubrick’s film, something that can only come from an acknowledgement that one cannot completely align with Kubrick’s actions toward her. In addition to this, users have displayed a complete and grounded rejection of praising the film alongside knowledge of Kubrick’s mistreatment of Duvall, shown in “I don’t think any movie, not even The Shining, justifies treating Shelley Duvall like that. Made me extremely sad this time around thinking about it. I just think the way we treat each other is more important than the art we make”. This as statement illustrates ideas of separating art from the artist in a coincidence with ethics, one that asserts no artistic merit or quality within The Shining as created and exerted by Kubrick can account for the psychological deterioration experienced by his leading lady. This user conveys a clear inability to separate art from artists and enjoy The Shining because they cannot eliminate their belief of compromised ethics in the form of extreme mistreatment on Kubrick’s part. Thus, the film generates negative emotions during viewing, which has the potential to lead to a refusal to watch. This refusal to engage with The Shining addresses the debate by showcasing how an artwork can be censored personally or officially due to knowledge of something the creator did. This user isn’t showing an inability to watch the film due to low quality in its elements such as visuals or narrative, which is the expected norm in disliking a film; instead, all criticism this user exerts derives from how Kubrick pushed Duvall to extreme measures for the sake of his art which exemplifies how art cannot be separated from its creator. Overall, Letterboxd reviews on The Shining are frequently attached to Duvall, whether that be showing sympathy towards her alongside criticising Kubrick or calling attention to her characterisation of Wendy, for example, “Perfect except for Shelley Duvall who delivers an extremely mixed performance”.
Polanski also faces a display of critiques towards his actions in areas provided to discuss his films on Letterboxd, alluding to an inability for the actions to be separated from expressing enjoyment or praise towards the art on a consumer’s part. An example of this is found in such Letterboxd reviews of Rosemary’s Baby that highlight immediate addressing of Polanski’s crimes or immoral character in the tongue-in-cheek statements of “Trust the devil to make such a great movie about the devil” and “ironic that a movie about a woman horrified that she has no control over her own body was made by Roman Polanski”. These came up as two of the most popular reviews of the film. Thus, are presented as the most shared and supported summaries of Rosemary’s Baby yet are dedicated mostly to referencing something the director did outside the film. As a result, this illustrates film fans’ inability to separate Polanski’s crimes from the film he made years prior, thus, displaying how his art cannot escape him as a person. Furthermore, others alluded to an attempt to disassociate Polanski as a director and person from his work to acknowledge the quality of the film comfortably, evident in “Pretty crazy how such an iconic movie didn’t even have a director. Truly amazing”. One even proposed that the film’s plot alludes to Polanski as a person in “and I believe that this is an autobiographical film about roman p*lanski’s birth”. This demonstrates how challenging it is to separate Rosemary’s Baby as a film from the life of its director, as this viewer’s public summary of the film has to connect it to and critique Polanski’s unethical actions, such to an extent they exemplify a wish he was not the one who created it.
Film fans addressing and critiquing Polanski as a person is a theme identified in nearly all reviews of all his work as accessed on Letterboxd; for example, one review of his 2002 film The Pianist, which was also heavily acclaimed, is just “movie good, polanski bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad”, conveying the binary oppositions of isolated art and the exterior knowledge of its artist with regards to one being praised and the other attacked. This was further emphasised in the dark humour reviews such as “Polanski takes time out from bathing with pubescent girls to make another masterpiece of film” and “Polanski is one of the great directors, there is no denying it. Just be wary if he suggests he babysit while you’re out at the movies”. Letterboxd users are consistent and straightforward in ensuring Polanski’s sexual misconduct is always associated with his work, maintaining the stance that art can not be made separate from its artist and their problematic persona.
The popular social media site Twitter is vehicled to express a range of opinions on infinite topics, film culture proving to be a well-favoured and massively supported niche among users. As both a form of social media and an exertion of current events, the site generates insightful discussion into topics such as separating art from its artist; users show extreme and obstinate stances in refusing to separate the two and display their opinions on problematic filmmakers unapologetically. When one searches Roman Polanski on the site, praise for his art is kept rather minimal among the immediate and most like tweets. For example, one account expressed their stance with the filmmaker in “Roman Polasnki is 88 and walking the tightrope of death and i am waiting for him to fall”. This communicates an extreme emotional response to Polanski and his crimes. The fact it is one of the first tweets found when his name is searched represents how he, as a figure, is being moved further away from his isolated art and what it means to further emphasise his previous crimes. This implies that separation between art and artist is coming towards a place where a creator’s art isn’t even considered in mentions of them once they’ve committed immoral acts. Other popular tweets about Polanski aren’t as emotionally driven. Instead, they aim to communicate information on the acts that have clouded reception towards his art, such as “Roman Polasnki tried suing a journalist for defaming his good name by reporing the multiple rapes he was accussed of but then couldn’t go to court in fear of being extradited for the rape of a minor he pled guilty to”. This further shows how Polanski is becoming more known for his crimes than his art by being one of the initial popular tweets about him. Film culture on Twitter concerns itself mostly with educating and keeping the information on Polanski alive and circulating, almost ignoring any praise towards his work when discussing him.
Even when official film and entertainment accounts post about Polanski’s films, there appears to be a conflict between praise for the film itself and attacks on Polanski in the response comments. These tend to be structured in binary oppositions, likewise to statements made in academic readings and Letterboxd reviews, thus, establishing the qualities of the art that are put against acts of the artist. In one official post to honour Rosemary’s Baby, captioned as “Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby” with screenshots of some of the film’s iconic moments, one of the immediate and most liked responses states, “Great film would be nice if someone else’s name popped up at the start though”, the one following it mirrors the binary opposites as “He’s a rapist but what an amazing film”. These response tweets are direct representations of the issue of separating art from artist; they show that Rosemary’s Baby cannot be praised for the brilliant film that it is without mentioning the distasteful fact that a man who committed rape directed it, alluding to how it is difficult for the majority of people to separate the two. Furthermore, it implies that film fans on Twitter feel that praising the film without still mentioning what its director did is a reflection of their own morals, that they may appear ignorant of his crimes if they don’t bridge them with their appraising response to a post about his film.
Stanley Kubrick and The Shining also receive this treatment from film fans on Twitter; searches for Kubrick’s name on the site embody a shift in attitudes towards him as a filmmaker and person in addressing his harsh actions towards Duvall on the set and mentions of these actions cloud searches of the film too. The first is evident in film accounts tweeting statements such as “Stanley Kubrick was a sexist and problematic man”, focusing on his negative actions and the personality these imply rather than any of his work and what quality it has. As a result, this alludes to Kubrick’s problematic actions may be overriding his art in terms of receiving mass attention. Others blend both criticisms towards him as a person. His credibility as a filmmaker in “Stanley Kubrick was brilliant, but he was also problematic”, communicating how one who engages with Kubrick and his work must face this harsh truth of him being an amazing artist, but this isn’t the case for him as a person. The latter is also evident when one searches for either Kubrick or The Shining and observes the most popular tweets, one prompt for serious discussion on the matter is, “At what point does cancelling everybody start to stifle the art? A lot of the best artists in history were problematic, and this applies to all mediums. Stanley Kubrick was a psychopath, but The Shining is still a masterpiece”. This tweet shows a consideration for the art, worrying about it being diluted and diminished at the hands of censoring its problematic artists. It highlights the opposition between the two under the categories of good and bad. It also acknowledges the fact that many of the best artists have done immoral things but questions if art should suffer as a consequence of this. This applies to The Shining because even though the film is credited for its skilful display of storytelling and visual elements to create a high-quality horror film, shown in the classification as “a masterpiece”, the stories of how Kubrick pushed Duvall to such extreme emotional lengths negotiates fans expressing their love for the film which this tweet aims to reject. This implies a stance of separating art from the artist, especially in the last line of the tweet, which argues that Kubrick’s unorthodox manners do not negotiate The Shining being a master in filmmaking.
Likewise, the official film accounts posting tributes to Rosemary’s Baby only to be met with criticism towards director Polanski. These accounts posting tributes to The Shining also receive criticism towards Kubrick’s actions during the filming. One post aimed to be a tribute to the film received a top comment that embodies the binary opposition between a good film and a bad filmmaker, stating, “The Shining is a good movie, but fuck Kubrick for torturing Shelley Duvall”, thus, establishing praise for the film being a well made one but also holding the director accountable for mistreating one of his cast. This further conveys examples of art not being separated from the artist because it shows no tribute to The Shining is free from Kubrick being criticised, even if that criticism comes alongside an appraisal of the film. Another post showed a behind-the-scenes photo of Kubrick and Duvall on set, a seemingly interesting piece of film memorabilia to a film fan who has no knowledge of what happened between the two. However, comments from users with this knowledge do not align with the sentimental and tribute tone of the post, one stating, “from what I remember working with Kubrick was a living hell for Duvall”, and another, “Kubrick put Duvall through way too much”. These responses decipher art not being separated from the artist because they exemplify the artist’s controversial acts being consistently mentioned when the art is brought up on Twitter, as well as an absence of praise directed towards the Shining as a film, implying Kubrick’s acts override the art. Some exemplify this stance in a grounded manner, such as “I’ll never forget the torment Kubrick put Duvall through; she deserved better”, thus, establishing their feelings of Duvall deserving justice for how she was treated as well as condemning Kubrick as a controversial person rather than praising him as a innovate filmmaker.
Reddit is an online site that attracts controversial subject matter and multi-layered discourse. The site has a reputation for possessing some conservative and problematic elements. However, there does reside counteraction. When observing the issue of separating great art from controversial artists, one finds the shift into the stance that you can’t, evident in a response to the straightforward question of can you separate the two stated as “ I think the art comes from someplace within the artist. Imo as long as the work itself doesn’t describe evil things or stands in connection to anything bad, it’s not problematic to enjoy”. This thought is interesting due to its grey area; it immediately acknowledges the self-expression and personal value all art holds from its creator, yet argues if the art itself is separate from anything the artist has done in the subject matter, then separation is possible. Polanski would fall short under this scenario, as Rosemary’s Baby as a story and his later crimes echo one another to some extent. The violent act of oppressing and violating a woman’s/girl’s body is a disturbing similarity between Polanski’s fiction and his real life. This ties in with another statement made that discusses art’s intentions. One Reddit user writes, “In most cases, I would argue that art cannot be separated from artists. Art is grounded in the particular political and historical contexts that shape the artist’s motivations. Furthermore, the identity of the artist is fundamentally intertwined with the work as it is being created and with the message the piece is intended to convey. At its most basic level, all art is political, which means that endorsing art is endorsing certain messages”. This illustrates art’s ability to educate and communicate political messages, something that people argue for when aiming to show art’s importance further than entertainment. Polanski’s thought process of abusing and traumatising young females is made exemplified in Rosemary’s Baby; his crime is a ‘historical context that shapes’ his ‘motivations’ as ‘the artist’, thus this knowledge makes it difficult to separate his acts from the film to enjoy it.
One opinion response asserted their stance of separation being possible by heavily observing the artist themself, proposing “they can create things, but they can never create themselves, it doesn’t matter how hard they try, they will never exist inside the work”. This takes a slightly philosophical route in its claim that artists can never truly cement themselves inside their art and, thus, exert any morals or personal history on their part into the culture. This user believes that despite being a Kubrick film, The Shining does not contain any of Kubrick as a person; he does not exist within the film’s story or any credibility the film gains in entertainment and culture. They would propose Polanski isn’t Rosemary’s Baby as a film, he cannot place himself or his actions in the art he has created, and therefore, the film is free to consume and enjoy as a stand-alone piece of visual art. As what happens in online debates around such matters, counteractions and further arguments are made against this statement. Another user responds by pulling apart from this perspective, stating, “I’d beg to disagree with this. Surely the true meaning of art is self expression? Therefore the art is not just individual to the artist but also a reflection of some part of them. They do very much exist inside the artwork…But it’s still their work. It came from their mind and is therefore a portrayal of a selection of their thoughts”. This viewpoint relates to interpretations previously explored and is a solid counterclaim. Claiming Polanski’s actions do not exist within his art of Rosemary’s Baby is easily argued against when one acknowledges his later acts echo those carried out by the antagonist cult in the narrative; he exploited a female similar to them, one that was a child in fact. The film can simply and straightforwardly be explored and classified as a ‘reflection of some part’ of him. Therefore, it is made difficult to separate Rosemary’s Baby from its director’s crimes.
Similar to Twitter, Reddit has its very own film fan culture, where tributes to and opinions of films circulate and receive expansion from other users. Classic auteur directors such as Kubrick have a solid fanbase and connection with Reddit users, one posting a behind-the-scenes clip of his work on The Shining. The clip features Duvall, who, according to the poster, is being treated badly. As a result, a debate on whether his actions are justified continues in the comment section. One user claims Kubrick “was an asshole” and no one on set “deserved to be treated badly”, therefore showing their belief that Kubrick was wrong as well as illustrating emphasis on Kubrick as a person rather than an artist. However, another user counteracts with an emphasis on the final product of the film as a piece of art, stating, “yeah but you can argue her performance was brilliant because of Kubrick”. Here, Kubrick’s treatment towards Duvall is being argued as good because, in this user’s eyes, it ended up elevating her performance and, thus, elevating the overall art of the film. This argument not only justifies Kubrick’s controversial and unorthodox actions but praises them, attaching this praise to the art. This dynamic displays an interesting and straightforward conflict that dictates a large proportion of the debate, one side argues using and for observation of who the artist was, and the other does so with the art and what it ends up becoming. This illustrates how in the discussion of whether art and artist should be separated, the two are separated by the arguments. One side is displaying how Kubrick should be viewed as a person who was not the most appropriate to another, rather than some transcendent genius creator who shouldn’t be challenged, thus, showing criticism towards him. The other position just focuses on the art, implying the stance of separating The Shining as a film from its director and the actions that took place during its creation.
Polanski’s actions also come under scrutiny and condemnation on Reddit. One article shared on the site discussed the issue of Polanski still receiving Oscar nominations and wins, asking if it's moral to let such a person succeed and be awarded for what he creates. One comment took a collaborative stance, arguing, “those people who won because they worked on his movies do not deserve their wins to be credited to him. It’s their own hard work”, thus, arguing for Polanski to be separated from his art as the sole creator.
Attitudes displayed on Reddit accentuate this shift in attitudes towards Polanski as both a filmmaker and a person, ones that are shown as counter remarks when Polanski and his successes are mentioned. This is evident in another article being posted about the director, the title classifying him as an “acclaimed” creator by also mentioning how he is a “known” sex offender, which had an immediate response of “Acclaimed Sex Criminal and Known Director and Screenwriter”. This spin on the wording of the title operates, to the user, as prioritising what Polanski should be most known for and, thus, receive certain attention for. This directly represents the belief that Polanski should be separated from any appraisal credit he can receive for his art and instead should just receive condemnation for his crimes, therefore, demonstrating an inability to separate art from the artist as his crimes are too extreme. A following response also took a critical tone, outrageously asking, “Acclaimed? Whose acclaiming him now?” exemplifying how the knowledge of Polanski’s crimes overrides and compromises any praise he receives for his art in filmmaking. Lastly, one meme on Reddit featured a picture of someone sitting in a pose that implies waiting, captioned with the statement, “me waiting for Roman polanski death soo i can finally buy Rosemary baby on DVD”. This joke represents issues and arguments previously and consistently explored in any written discussion on the separating art from the artist debate. The user is making jokes about how some art consumers choose to wait for a problematic creator’s passing so they can freely engage with their art, illustrating a route to a moral high ground in the matter by avoiding financially benefitting the artist.
YouTube provides diverse opinions and discussions within and under the videos posted there by users. After public shifts in attitudes towards engaging with art created by someone who displays a coloured moral compass, creators on the platform have compiled examples, research and their own interpretations in videos on the matter. One video titled ‘Can You Separate Art From The Artist?” posted by Rowan Ellis, serves as an invitation for her subscribers or any other users to share their feelings and learn from others. Ellis provides the context of artists who have been morally questionable but have created enjoyable art, across numerous artistic mediums other than film, alongside prompts of both sides, such as financial aid or personal interpretation of an art piece. The responses to her video were a diverse landscape as some agreed you can while others disagreed, and some admitted to being unsure and unable to pick a side. One of the top comments stated, “My instinctive answer is no because of how interconnected everything feels in life. It feels personal because humans are so centred on emotions in response. It’s such a nuanced question!”. This reply emphasises the huge personalised and emotional investment that comes as a reaction or association with art. As audiences sometimes interpret films as art to be personal extensions of their creators, the idea of separating the two becomes impossible. This is elevated when audiences consume art and, thus, invest their own emotions in it alongside those the artist felt when they created it. The user expands upon this idea in a later sentence of the same comment, “maybe when one person involved in the creation of the thing messes up, we see that one thing as forever tainted”, demonstrating the changed perception of art once knowledge of the artist is established. Essentially, this user is articulating how they come to associate the artwork’s image in the same vein as the artist’s immorality. They feel that the work becomes demolished and altered once the artist exemplifies unethical actions, thus, communicating a psychological reason as to why and how they cannot severe art from the artist.
This opinion is opposed by another user who establishes a stance of being unable to avoid artists who are completely ethical throughout their whole careers and life. They write, “I personally separate the art from the artist. Why? There’s so much art in the world that’s been produced by people that have done morally wrong things in their life.”, therefore, demonstrating the belief that you have to separate the two because problematic people create the majority of art, but art is essential to the culture. This viewpoint argues for art’s sake while submitting to a fatalistic tone when it comes to considering the artist and their actions. Under this perspective, one has to negotiate between art’s importance to society and to humans, in terms of both education and enjoyment, and the acts of its artist. You cannot escape controversy in artists, and you cannot ignore every piece of good art because of this consistent controversy. This comment argues for The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby as two widely acclaimed and artistically brilliant films, both exemplifying their genres and visual storytelling to a degree that has been considered a genius and master-level decades after release.
As expected, the substantial occurrence of a moral compass and ethical consideration provides counteraction to the signalling of what art means to and for us. Another user explains their answer that you can’t separate art from the artist, “I refuse to support people that are doing things that I consider morally bankrupt. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it means you have to cut out art you really love because you feel unable to support the artist morally”. Here, the tug of war between emphasis on art and emphasis on the artist is illustrated in the scenario of sacrificing art’s meaning and emotional value because the moral issues surrounding the artist prove to be too detrimental to one’s psyche when engagement is still given. This means Rosemary’s Baby, in spite of its status in American and horror filmmaking, would have to face the consequences of what its director did because the weight of his crimes hangs over the film to a great extent. This user addresses the hard-hitting and challenging process of not separating art from the artist; it is painful to cut off a piece of art one enjoyed and invested in emotionally because they are unable to forget the ill acts of its creator. However, for them personally, the compromise of ethics bears too strong and overrides this and, thus, leads to the stance of conjoining consuming art with supporting its creator. This stems from both the belief in personal expression in art and the financial elevation provided by consumption.
Other comments focused more on further questions to ask and consider when engaging in the debate. One user wrote as a response, “I think the question shouldn’t be ‘Can we separate art and author?’, but ‘Should we?’ I think the issue seems way more like a moral one than a theoretical one if you ask like that”, which echos previous interpretations explored when considering the ethical incorporations. It restructures the entire debate and any arguments made to be philosophical rather than alleged physical, as supported by the ethical landscape. Even if one can separate The Shining as a film from the events that took place on set, if the question is, can it be done, the question then moves to the placement of whether is it right to do that. This is proposed as another way of examining the debate as a whole. However, it can also be situated as the second stage if there is the decision that one can separate art from the artist. Another video posted by The Art Assignment titled ‘Love the Art, Hate the Artist’ also generated interesting discourse around the subject. The video addresses how “our reading of an artwork is always affected by the knowledge we either have or don’t have” about its conditions and its creator. It also voices “our own personal choice in the matter” and how audiences of art have a choice to engage with artwork under the knowledge of the artist. These ideas serve as a foundation for the viewers to build on and voice their own interpretations in the comments. One comment admits an opinion that there’s an inability to make a final decision as “this is one of those dilemmas that will never be satisfactorily resolved, but is really important to grapple with!”. This illustrates the struggle that resides within the discussion at hand; some feel these problems prove to be too large and unsolvable due to the dire tackling of morality at hand.
Another comment strategically proposes a compromise between the entertainment of art and the ethics of engaging with problematic artists, writing how “you can enjoy problematic art (or media) and problematic artists. The challenge is be honest with yourself and others and do not defend the problems or dismiss them”. Here, there is a distinct separation between engaging with and praising art one enjoys purely for what the art means and acknowledging that what the artist did is wrong and deserves condemnation. This means one can appreciate Rosemary’s Baby's mastery of filmmaking and other crafts, such as performances. However, one must distinguish how they separate this artistry from what Polanski did and also emphasise how one feels he must be held accountable for his crimes. It highlights how one can be free to consume and praise art as long as there is a clear and precise establishment of not defending anything immoral the artist did alongside creating the art. Furthermore, other users demonstrated a similar compromise between the two binaries as a means of settling the debate where both parties are satisfied. One comment states, “I personally agree that art should be viewed separately but I also think educating is important. We also shouldn’t separate what the artist has done and not highlight it when we’re talking about it”, an interpretation that pays attention to both the art and the actions. This illustrates that re-stating what the artist did wrong should be established in order to ensure education on the matter, something that is coincided with praise towards their art. This appears to be evident in conversations around The Shining, in which Kubrick’s treatment of Duvall is always mentioned and criticised in both academic and casual conversations surrounding the film. This underlining of Kubrick’s actions runs alongside praising the film’s visuals and generation of fear in audiences, showing that one can separate the high quality of the film as art and the unethical procedures that took place in creating it.
Overall, the internet displays some extreme stances on whether art can be separated from its artist, the majority of them aligning with the belief that you cannot and also that artists should face never-ending consequences for their immoral acts. Those who use the internet to express this opinion, whether the context is beginning a discussion or partaking in one, use tones that are sometimes tongue-in-cheek or overall humorous for dramatic effect. Interestingly enough, when compared to official written articulations on the matter, the opinions on the internet lack sophistication or direct intellect. However, the same effect is still present when observing the message being communicated. This implies that the meanings and interpretations are so profound and prevalent that no matter the tone or source of communication, one can still identify and engage with them. Users on sites such as Twitter or Reddit are still able to mirror the arguments and perspectives demonstrated in academic writings and rejuvenate them using different moods and formats. The majority of users are consistent in arguing art should not be separated due to the issue of personal expression in art, artists gaining financial advancement and ethical compromise. The time these perspectives are outlined exemplifies how contemporary attitudes signal mostly towards prioritising the ethics of whatever the situation is over the status of the artist or the overall art.
VI. Is There a Conclusion?
To culminate, in light of all that has been highlighted during this evaluation, the debate of separating art from this artist has proved to be one that positions ethics, economics, entertainment and education against one another as stances of argument. With these serving as ammo on either side, art critics and consumers are challenged to find some common ground with the opposing side. Art of any medium is vital to society and culture. Its creation and imprint stand the test of time due to how people invest in it both emotionally and intellectually. This means it can move beyond who its creator is and what they have done once it is consumed and interpreted to such high-level countless times. However, the extreme presence of immorality on the artist’s part, especially if combined directly in the creation, can pull it back from such a high realm. In Kubrick’s case, his unethical behaviour weighs on The Shining in a negative personal way. This is because of the breakdown he pulled from Duvall to create the emotions necessary for her character at certain stages. However, the art was not worth such personal exploitation. In order to find a compromise, critics and consumers cannot ignore or dismiss what Kubrick did during filming and how it was wrong, yet, they can still praise The Shining for the well-made film that it is. It is possible to address both the positive residing within the art and the negative present in the artist’s methods or personal life. One does not have to choose in a black or white manner, nor have to sacrifice a piece of artwork they invested with or learnt from because its creator compromised their moral compass, as long as there is established awareness of the latter. Once an artwork of any medium has been consumed and had attention drawn to it through praise and recommendation, the artist can build their finances, which can protect them from consequences due to the power handed. This is evident when looking at Polanski, who can shield himself from a prison sentence because of the money he gains when Rosemary’s Baby is purchased. This outlines the compromise between morality and enjoying art, with the issue of money serving as the overall issue. However, this can also be combated and solved, as there are alternate methods to engaging with the film via purchasing, such as borrowing a copy from public libraries. One can also demonstrate the grey matter perspective by assuring a critique of Polanski’s crimes is made when praising his work. Essentially, make sure Polanski never escapes condemnation for his actions alongside praise for his craft, separating his stance as an artist to allow applause from his stance as a human who has done unforgivable crimes.
An overall addition I have concluded after my research is the acknowledged importance of and need for art, established on either side of the debate. Consumers who have written their stance voice how they feel a sense of guilt when engaging with art made by a controversial figure, something that has to derive from a strong attachment to the work. Art’s ability to entertain, educate and create emotion is what negotiates the unprincipled behaviour exemplified by the artist, thus, preventing an immediate censoring of both itself and its creator. In the case of film, the artistry, demonstrated in both stories and visuals, has multi-purposes of representing and influencing society, as well as providing catharsis for spectators. Films have the power to represent us and others. Thus, we learn about ourselves and those around us. Their positioning in the art realm is what speaks to audiences. In most cases, films become separated from their director because of the excessive emotional investment directed towards them from these spectators. This means a film can become an extension and expression of a watcher, not just the director. Essentially, I have concluded that a shared solution to this debate is far from being found. The dilemma of choosing between an artist’s emotional and educational impact or the alleged mislaying of morals poses a clash between emotional and rational approaches in responses. These two perspectives struggle to be compromised, thus, cementing the inability to find common ground. With contemporary society’s search for progression as advocated through extreme liberalism, art’s status in culture will remain compromised if its creator behaved immorally.
VII. Bibliography
Academic Journals and Articles
Protecting the Bookshelf: Reading at the Intersection of Art and Morality by Elizabeth (Ellie) Schaffer, A thesis presented for the B.A. degree with Honors in The Department of English University of Michigan Winter 2019
Shelley Duvall’s traumatic experience while shooting Stanley Kubrick's film 'The Shining', Debadrita Sur, Far Out Magazine, 2021
Roman Polanski Accused of 1975 Rape, Liz Alderman and Elian Peltier, The New York Times, Nov 9 2019
Can we separate art from the artist?, Eden Mor, The Daily Free Press, November 30 2021
Opinion: You can't separate art from the artist, Ella Adams, The Appalachian, Apil 2021
Should we separate art from the artist?. Reid Corley, The Triton Times, May 2019
Separating Art from the Artist: A Guide to a Consistent Principle, Ashley Griffin, OnStageBlog, March 2021
What Do We Do When The Art We Love Was Created By A Monster? Constance Grady, 2018
Authorship in Cinema: Author & Reader. Başak Demiray, CINEJ Cinema Journal. 4. 4. (2015).
A Case Study on Film Authorship: Exploring the Theoretical and Practical Sides in Film Production David Tregde* Media Arts and Entertainment Elon University, 2013
On the impossibility of separating art from artist, Jacob Kupperman, The Stanford Daily, October 27 2017
Good art by bad people: Why it shouldn’t be thrown away, Russell Smith, The Globe and Mail, November 16 2017
Separating art from the artist, Noah Jeane, The Boar, October 12 2021
Online Sites
Reddit Pages
Letterboxd Reviews of The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Pianist
Youtube