Can I really separate the person from the art?

[UPDATE: I had some images here, but removed them for copyright's sake. 2015/12/04]

I've seen a lot of material in the news about the tension between a creator's personal life and their creation:

• R.Kelly's Trapped in the Closet and his rape of an underage girl. I love Trapped in the Closet and gave my wife a DVD of its first 22 episodes this Christmas. However, people have clearly documented R.Kelly's crimes. Can I really enjoy R.Kelly's work if I also know the guy's a pedophile? This article at rabble made it pretty clear.

There are dozens of women in the US right now who were allegedly raped by R. Kelly when they were as young as 14 who haven’t yet seen full justice for the crimes committed against them. [...]

It is a violation against these women’s right to safety and dignity each time we condone or celebrate their rapist’s work.

How are cultural institutions, and we ourselves, perpetuating rape culture?

• Woody Allen's many films and his sexual abuse allegations. Although I don't think I'm necessarily a "fan" of Woody Allen's films, I have enjoyed them in the past and they've been important cultural touchstones. I don't feel the need to throw the films away, but I can't help but feel as if I'm giving in to some serious cognitive dissonance. I don't want to "side on the side of the abuser," either. The Onion said it best. I also fear ending up like the people in this cartoon. The Maclean's article articulates the confusion in a rather clear manner.

The fact that Allen’s guilt will never be tested in a court of law (the statute of limitations on the case ran out years ago) and that the truth will never known beyond a few people (Allen denies all claims and calls Dylan’s letter “untrue and disgraceful”) is immaterial in this showdown. Allen, and Dylan Farrow, are being tried in the more brutal court of online opinion, a forum designed to confirm cognitive bias. If you want to read a defence of Allen by a colleague, click here. If you want to read why that account is deeply flawed, read here. If you want to understand why what Dylan did was rare and brave, click here. If you want to hear Allen’s lawyer call Dylan a “pawn” who was coached by her vindictive mother during a bitter custody battle, click here. If you want to see Barbara Walters call her old pal Woody a great father, click here. If you want to see the Farrow family riven by conflict, click here. If you want to believe that we’re watching a calculated media campaign by the Farrow family to publicize Mia Farrow’s human rights work and Ronan Farrow’s career, click here. For an itemization of Allen’s creepy long-time obsession with young women and girls click here. And if you want insight into how celebrities routinely get away with sexual assault, click here.

• Bill Cosby's rape allegations and his comedy. I watched The Cosby Show growing up and I've generally appreciated Bill Cosby's stand-up albums. However, I've read about plenty of rape and assault allegations about him over the years. I admit that these allegations taint my view of his humor, especially as his recent curmudgeonly comments appear on my Facebook feed.

Not thinking about it is a popular and powerful choice. Which brings up another beloved American funnyman, Bill Cosby. Who doesn't love Bill Cosby? I grew up watching Fat Albertand eating Jell-O Pudding Pops, which is a cliché, but Bill Cosby is the creator of some of our most warming and affirming clichés. He is charming and iconic, one of the most culturally important and successful comedians ever, an elder statesman of the entertainment industry.

He's also someone who has been accused by multiple women of drugging them and sexually assaulting them. 

• Brian Dunning's admittance to fraud and his podcast intended to expose frauds. I've enjoyed Dunning's Skeptoid podcast in the past and still do. He recently admitted to wire fraud. I guess that makes him a fraud, right? Rebecca Watson, as usual, is right.

Brian Dunning is fairly prominent amongst skeptics for his podcast, Skeptoid. He’s prominent amongst FBI agents for his conviction for wire fraud. (The case has been ongoing since 2011, but Dunning’s sentencing is April 28, 2014.) For those who are unfamiliar with the skeptical community, it is based in large part on exposing frauds, so this criminal’s continued popularity with skeptics is a fascinating study in human nature.

For instance, Dunning was a speaker at JREF’s annual Amazing Meeting in 2012 [EDIT: a friend has pointed out that Dunning's case didn't make headlines until the spring of 2013, so never mind!], he was a guest on The Skeptic Zone podcast in November of 2013, and someone recently pointed me toward this mewling, embarrassing apologetic in the face of Dunning pleading guilty to stealing $5 million in part using cookies planted on visitors to his Skeptoid website.

I don't care about any of these people. If they've done these crimes, they should go through whatever process is necessary to convict them. Their celebrity status, no matter how limited, should not excuse them from criticism and abandonment.

But what about their work? It seems that—as already mentioned—I should not support and perpetuate criminals' work. I shouldn't give R.Kelly credit for Trapped in the Closet when my support might whitewash his rape convictions; I shouldn't view Woody Allen films when it appears that it might support his messing-up-of-his-family; I shouldn't treat Bill Cosby as an "elder" when he clearly feels the need to exercise unnecessary power over women; I shouldn't support an anti-fraud podcast when the creator has admitted to a form of fraud.

But I also think we should be able to separate the art from the artist. It feels slippery slope-ish. It feels like I'm going to have no media to use if I pick out all the bad stuff about everybody. Why should I allow art from people who don't show integrity? Because it's good art. Because I'm ignorant of most people's issues and have no way to know who I should support and who I shouldnt. I admit that I'm a subjective judge of how to separate the art from the artist, but I think it's much better to try to separate them than it is to not separate them.

But it still doesn't sit right to just let it all slide. They made some good work; I have no reason to not enjoy the work. Is this a "grey" situation? Certainly. However, we navigate most of our lives through greyness, and what media doesn't cater to that realm?

So I think I'll keep thinking I can separate the art from the artist, even if it may be a delusional endeavor.

---

What about myself, however? What parts of my personal life might change the way people look at my music? What could people expose that might threaten my own art? Why should I expect people to enjoy my music in spite of my shortcomings?

Even moreso, as a teacher, could my own music call my professional standing into question? I know I have a couple sensual bits on the upcoming demos and even drop the word "shit" in "This is the Time." It's a little frightening to put my creative music out there when I'm a member of such a closely-watched professional group.